USAToday on Mormon DNA
Nancy
Red Davis
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
Nancy,
Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
A dialogue works like this: you say something, I address your points
and offer an alternative explanation and make my points. You next
respond with an alternative explanation to my points, and we go again
in an interative process.
Again, ignoring the facts we post in response and simply reposting the
same old same old doesn't work with us. We will ignore you and move
onto someone who wants to have an honest discussion as described
above.
-Red Davis
John Manning
> On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>
> Nancy,
> Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
That's all biased material from LDS sources, Red. Objective scientists
don't accept biased opinion as legitimate peer reviewed science.
> Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
Then why did you do it by posting that same old same old biased material
from LDS sources.
Red Davis
Ooops. My bad, Nancy, and my apologies - please forgive me. I got my
posts with you mixed up with the posts with Ramona.
Here are the DNA articles I posted yesterday in response to Ramona,
that represent LDS perspectives on the issue of DNA and the Book of
Mormon:
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_VC_S...
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=231&previous=L3B1YmxpY...
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=311&previous=L3B1YmxpY...
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=305&previous=L3B1YmxpY...
-Red Davis
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>
> >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>
> Nancy,
> Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
>
> Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
Neither, apparently, do facts.
> A dialogue works like this: you say something, I address your points
How have you addressed the science of DNA? You are not a scientist,
so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
> and offer an alternative explanation and make my points.
Hogwash! A good "alternative explanation" to the Mormon story is that
the Book of Mormon is a fraud. It's a very nice explanation, too, as
it's fully consistent with all the evidence.
> You next
> respond with an alternative explanation to my points, and we go again
> in an interative process.
What verifiable, non-trivial evidence do you have that the Book of
Mormon is not a fraud?
> Again, ignoring the facts we post in response
What "facts" have you posted that invalidate the scientific community
[remember that your argument isn't with me, it's with the scientists.]
> and simply reposting the
> same old same old doesn't work with us.
Clearly. But the posts are not for religious fanatics who're unable
to change their minds. The posts are for the other readers on ARM.
> We will ignore you
Clearly.
> and move
> onto someone who wants to have an honest discussion as described
> above.
"Honest discussion" in Mormon speak means someone won't disagree with
their naked assertions.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of 'Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Red Davis
> Red Davis wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
> >>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>
> > Nancy,
> > Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> > on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
>
> That's all biased material from LDS sources, Red. Objective scientists
> don't accept biased opinion as legitimate peer reviewed science.
It is one thing to claim that something is biased and therefore
erroneous, and another to show where it is erroneous due to its bias.
The former is "shooting the messenger", the latter is distinguising
facts.
Whom else would respond with the LDS perspective? I think you are a
silly duck.
-Red Davis
>
> > Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
>
> Then why did you do it by posting that same old same old biased material
> from LDS sources.
>
>
>
> > A dialogue works like this: you say something, I address your points
> > and offer an alternative explanation and make my points. You next
> > respond with an alternative explanation to my points, and we go again
> > in an interative process.
>
> > Again, ignoring the facts we post in response and simply reposting the
> > same old same old doesn't work with us. We will ignore you and move
> > onto someone who wants to have an honest discussion as described
> > above.
>
> > -Red Davis- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Manning
> On Jan 23, 7:05 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> Red Davis wrote:
>>> On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>>> Nancy,
>>> Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
>>> on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
>> That's all biased material from LDS sources, Red. Objective scientists
>> don't accept biased opinion as legitimate peer reviewed science.
>
> It is one thing to claim that something is biased and therefore
> erroneous, and another to show where it is erroneous due to its bias.
>
> The former is "shooting the messenger", the latter is distinguising
> facts.
>
> Whom else would respond with the LDS perspective? I think you are a
> silly duck.
Apart from your kindergarten insult, the information you presented isn't
objective peer-reviewed science, it's biased opinion from LDS sources.
Any clown can write his opinion. Opinion isn't science.
Nancy
Of course I'm not a Scientist! But isn't it okay for people to quote
the findings of those who are?
If the BoM and what it says is true and if Joseph Smith is a Prophet of
God and the LDS Church is the only true church on earth today, than
than it will withstand all scrutiny, true?
Red Davis
wrote:
> On Jan 23, 3:51 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>
> > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>
> > Nancy,
> > Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> > on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
>
> > Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
>
> Neither, apparently, do facts.
>
> > A dialogue works like this: you say something, I address your points
>
> How have you addressed the science of DNA? You are not a scientist,
> so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
Actually, I am a scientist. I have a degree in engineering from Texas
A&M University, College Station, and I do advanced research on various
engineering topics. While my expertise is not DNA, I am more than
familiar with scientific methods and I have read through the FARMS
material and determined that its scientific premises, basis, and
reasoning are sound and supportable on that subject.
>
> > and offer an alternative explanation and make my points.
>
> Hogwash! A good "alternative explanation" to the Mormon story is that
> the Book of Mormon is a fraud. It's a very nice explanation, too, as
> it's fully consistent with all the evidence.
See, there you go again: a hasty generalization. "all the evidence"
does not show the Book of Mormon is false. Indeed, there is *no*
evidence that shows that it is false. Again, I have been reviewing
such evidence for almost 30 years, and I haven't seen any yet.
I must mention that internal textual constructions argue that the Book
of Mormon is authentic, such as the fact that Joseph Smith, Jr.,
translated the Book of Mormon., yet he never used the term "Jr." to
describe fathers and sons that share the same name -- the terms
"younger" and "son of " were used. There is no concept of "Jr." in
Hebrew of Egyptian. Also, the Book of Mormon contains acient Hebriew
writing patterns such as chiasmus.
Here are some well researched articles that disagree with your
statement that "all the evidence....":
http://byustudies.byu.edu/chiasmus/
>
> > You next
> > respond with an alternative explanation to my points, and we go again
> > in an interative process.
>
> What verifiable, non-trivial evidence do you have that the Book of
> Mormon is not a fraud?
Uh, been posting it the past few days. You ever read the documents
attached to my links like the ones I copied above?
>
> > Again, ignoring the facts we post in response
>
> What "facts" have you posted that invalidate the scientific community
> [remember that your argument isn't with me, it's with the scientists.]
There you go again. Only people who have no understanding of the
scientific community claim that "the scientific community" supports
their position and no other.
While articles critical of the Book of Mormon have been written by
individual members of the scientific community and have said Subject A
indicates the Book of Mormon isn't true -- others members of the
scientific community have written articles disagreeing with such an
assertion.
>
> > and simply reposting the
> > same old same old doesn't work with us.
>
> Clearly. But the posts are not for religious fanatics who're unable
> to change their minds. The posts are for the other readers on ARM.
All you ever do is post newspaper stories and run around typing
"false, FALSE, false, false, it's false, false, false, false."
I am asking you to put up, or shut up. You shouldn't go around saying
things that you can't support.
-Red Davis
Red Davis
> Red
> Of course I'm not a Scientist! But isn't it okay for people to quote
> the findings of those who are?
You are mixing me up for something Duwayne Anderson posted. The way
these threadsd are listed in Google make it problematic to keep which
poster is posting straight, so its not unusual to mix up who said
what.
Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
researcher.
BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (Texas A&M -
ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
believe, a Bachelor's of Art in Physics (BYU -- not even ranked in the
top 50 nationally).
So, both of us should understand the scientific method, but niether of
us are experts in DNA, though I have seen Duwayne pretend he is.
> If the BoM and what it says is true and if Joseph Smith is a Prophet of
> God and the LDS Church is the only true church on earth today, than
> than it will withstand all scrutiny, true?
That is correct. It will, and has, understood all scrutiny.
Apparently you have only been reading one side of the story. The LDS
certainly have valid responses to the criticisms.
-Red Davis
"john p"
> How have you addressed the science of DNA? You are not a scientist,
> so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
>
> > and offer an alternative explanation and make my points.
>
> Hogwash! A good "alternative explanation" to the Mormon story is that
> the Book of Mormon is a fraud. It's a very nice explanation, too, as
> it's fully consistent with all the evidence.
>
It makes more sense to believe the non-magical explanation. Even if
we didn't have a non-superstitious explanation, intelligent people
could reasonably assume there was one.
紐. L. Measures
heartfo...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
> Red
> Of course I'm not a Scientist! But isn't it okay for people to quote
> the findings of those who are?
** Not if the findings cast a shadow of doubt on the wonderful BoM.
> If the BoM and what it says is true and if Joseph Smith is a Prophet of
> God and the LDS Church is the only true church on earth today, than
> than it will withstand all scrutiny, true?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
紐. L. Measures
<13961221-14c5-46ef...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Red
Davis <there...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 6:13=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 3:51 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
> >
> > > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
> >
> > > Nancy,
> > > Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> > > on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
> >
> > > Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
> >
> > Neither, apparently, do facts.
> >
> > > A dialogue works like this: you say something, I address your points
> >
> > How have you addressed the science of DNA? =A0You are not a scientist,
> > so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
>
> Actually, I am a scientist. I have a degree in engineering from Texas
> A&M University, College Station, and I do advanced research on various
> engineering topics. While my expertise is not DNA, I am more than
> familiar with scientific methods and I have read through the FARMS
> material and determined that its scientific premises, basis, and
> reasoning are sound and supportable on that subject.
>
** chortle
紐. L. Measures
<85ab82b9-f5be-412c...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Red
Davis <there...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 8:37=A0pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
> > Red
> > Of course I'm not a Scientist! =A0But isn't it okay for people to quote
> > the findings of those who are?
>
> You are mixing me up for something Duwayne Anderson posted. The way
> these threadsd are listed in Google make it problematic to keep which
> poster is posting straight, so its not unusual to mix up who said
> what.
>
> Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> researcher.
>
> BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering
** what kind of engineering Red?
> (Texas A&M -
> ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> believe, a Bachelor's of Art in Physics (BYU -- not even ranked in the
> top 50 nationally).
>
** The man who invented video tape recording fluked out of Electronics
Engineering at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.
Ramona
> On Jan 23, 7:05 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > Red Davis wrote:
> > > On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
> > >>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>
> > > Nancy,
> > > Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> > > on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
>
> > That's all biased material from LDS sources, Red. Objective scientists
> > don't accept biased opinion as legitimate peer reviewed science.
>
> It is one thing to claim that something is biased and therefore
> erroneous, and another to show where it is erroneous due to its bias.
>
> The former is "shooting the messenger", the latter is distinguising
> facts.
>
> Whom else would respond with the LDS perspective? I think you are a
> silly duck.
Of course I only use prescriptions that are exclusively tested by the
pharmaceutical companies themselves. They are the only ones that will
tell me the complete truth about the products they are the ones
manufacturing and earning money from the medications. Damn the F.D.A.
and their independent study requirements! We only need to Pfizers,
Johnson & Johnson's, Merck's, and Wyeth's. They alone will give us the
truth.
Ramona
紐. L. Measures
<c7e15fb5-865d-4e4b...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 7:14 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 7:05 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > > Red Davis wrote:
> > > > On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
> > > >>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
> >
> > > > Nancy,
> > > > Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> > > > on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
> >
> > > That's all biased material from LDS sources, Red. Objective scientists
> > > don't accept biased opinion as legitimate peer reviewed science.
> >
> > It is one thing to claim that something is biased and therefore
> > erroneous, and another to show where it is erroneous due to its bias.
> >
> > The former is "shooting the messenger", the latter is distinguising
> > facts.
> >
> > Whom else would respond with the LDS perspective? I think you are a
> > silly duck.
>
> Of course I only use prescriptions that are exclusively tested by the
> pharmaceutical companies themselves. They are the only ones that will
> tell me the complete truth about the products they are the ones
> manufacturing and earning money from the medications.
** Excellent chortles. congrats Ramona.
> Damn the F.D.A.
> and their independent study requirements! We only need to Pfizers,
> Johnson & Johnson's, Merck's, and Wyeth's. They alone will give us the
> truth.
>
> Ramona
> >
> > -Red Davis
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
> >
> > > Then why did you do it by posting that same old same old biased material
> > > from LDS sources.
> >
> > > > A dialogue works like this: you say something, I address your points
> > > > and offer an alternative explanation and make my points. You next
> > > > respond with an alternative explanation to my points, and we go again
> > > > in an interative process.
> >
> > > > Again, ignoring the facts we post in response and simply reposting the
> > > > same old same old doesn't work with us. We will ignore you and move
> > > > onto someone who wants to have an honest discussion as described
> > > > above.
> >
> > > > -Red Davis- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Ramona
> On Jan 23, 8:37 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>
> > Red
> > Of course I'm not a Scientist! But isn't it okay for people to quote
> > the findings of those who are?
>
> You are mixing me up for something Duwayne Anderson posted. The way
> these threadsd are listed in Google make it problematic to keep which
> poster is posting straight, so its not unusual to mix up who said
> what.
>
> Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> researcher.
>
> ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> believe, a Bachelor's of Art in Physics (BYU -- not even ranked in the
> top 50 nationally).
>
an engineer.
You also may want to take a peek here:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php
It seems Princeton is #1 and Texas A & M is #62, while BYU is not far
behind at #79. Georgia Tech is tied at #35, go yellow jackets.
I hope you realize how childish your attempt at legitimacy through
rankings appears. Will you next desire to compare penis size and
conclude the better lover based on that? Yes it's a bit strawman, but
I would wager you are woefully insufficient and are attempting to
bolster your ego this way. You probably also own a large truck and
large dog.
> So, both of us should understand the scientific method,
Many of your writings strongly suggest you do not understand the first
thing about scientific method.
Here is an elementary version that I thought would aid your
understanding. You might pay particular heed to #4 and #5.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_method
If one uses the scientific method, one CHANGES one's knowledge based
on findings when those findings are proven wrong time and time again.
You ignore the findings and gain no new knowledge instead tossing out
new facts and not reworking the hypothesis. You also sadly narrow
your sources which I consider outliers and motivated to find very
specific conclusions...just like the pharmaceutical companies
mentioned in another thread.
> us are experts in DNA, though I have seen Duwayne pretend he is.
I have watched your repeated claims to be a scientist while completely
ignoring scientific method.
>
> > If the BoM and what it says is true and if Joseph Smith is a Prophet of
> > God and the LDS Church is the only true church on earth today, than
> > than it will withstand all scrutiny, true?
>
> That is correct. It will, and has, understood all scrutiny.
It has also FAILED repeatedly under that understood scrutiny, yet you
refuse to revise your hypothesis. At best that makes you a failed
scientist.
> Apparently you have only been reading one side of the story. The LDS
> certainly have valid responses to the criticisms.
I have yet to see a valid response. Time and time and time again
D.N.A. has been shown to NOT match the desired outcome for the LDS
Church. Does your hypothesis change? No. Instead you bang of the
puzzle of your story line in an attempt to force the puzzle pieces to
fit. They don't, but there is a simple way to fix the problem as
every real scientist knows....you simply need to change your
hypothesis and retest. Let us see how that one works.
Old hypothesis - Native Americans have Jewish D.N.A. because Joseph
Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and I believe it to be non-fiction.
test shows that DNA is asian
repeated tests show that DNA is asian
New hypothesis Native Americans have asian DNA, perhaps traveling over
the land bridge. The BOM is fiction.
Test DNA is Asian and from very specific regions
repeated tests confirm finding.
Conclusion native Americans are of Siberian origin having traveled
over the land bridge. The Book Of Mormon is a work of fiction and
irrelevant to the studies and is actually a hindrance to scientific
study.
Here is where scientific method and your method differs: if new
information is made available scientific method forces a new
hypothesis with new testing.
Ramona
>
> -Red Davis
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > How have you addressed the science of DNA? You are not a scientist,
> > so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
>
> Actually, I am a scientist.
Please list your peer-review papers dealing with DNA:
Waiting.....
<snip to end>
John Manning
Excellent, Ramona.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> While my expertise is not DNA,
No surprise there!
But the folks who *ARE* experts in DNA tell us that the scientific
evidence points to the peopling of the Americas by folks from in/near
points in Asia - not the BOM fairytale about them coming from the
Middle East 2600 years ago.
So here we have an engineer with no "expertise" in DNA telling the
scientists how the native Americans *really* got here - and what's his
evidence? Nothing. Just a feeling that makes his bosom burn.
> I am more than
> familiar with scientific methods
Really? Tell us again how you learn truth from the holy ghost.
> and I have read through the FARMS
> material and determined that its scientific premises, basis, and
> reasoning are sound and supportable on that subject.
Typical Mormon apologist -- well read in Mormon propaganda published
by FARMS (an outlet house for Mormon propaganda, supported by the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) -- functionally
illiterate in the science they bash.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> See, there you go again: a hasty generalization. "all the evidence"
> does not show the Book of Mormon is false. Indeed, there is *no*
> evidence that shows that it is false.
The Book of Mormon says the following things about great ancient
American cultures. It's wrong in every case (if you think it's right,
then name the great ancient American cultures that had these things,
and back them up with verifiable objective evidence from the
scientific literature):
1) Horses
2) Iron/steel smelting
4) Used Hebrew & Egyptian
5) Came to the Americas from points in/near the Middle East a few
thousand years ago
6) Planted and harvested Old World plants
> Again, I have been reviewing
> such evidence for almost 30 years, and I haven't seen any yet.
No surprise there -- got to take your hands off your eyes. But nobody
expects you to do that. As a religious fanatic there is no specific
set of verifiable actions that the prophet might do that would deprive
him of your sustaining vote. With such bone-headed determination to
"follow the prophet," I'd be surprised if you *did* see any evidence
proving the Book of Mormon false.
> I must mention that internal textual constructions argue that the Book
> of Mormon is authentic,
Actually, statistical analysis of month dates shows it's a clumsy
fraud. See the following link:
http://mormonism-proandcon.org/id9.html
>such as the fact that Joseph Smith, Jr.,
> translated the Book of Mormon., yet he never used the term "Jr." to
> describe fathers and sons that share the same name
You must be joking.
> -- the terms
> "younger" and "son of " were used. There is no concept of "Jr." in
> Hebrew of Egyptian. Also, the Book of Mormon contains acient Hebriew
> writing patterns such as chiasmus.
Smith's other writings are full of Chiasmus -- proving he wrote the
Book of Mormon. See the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/davow.html
> Here are some well researched articles that disagree with your
> statement that "all the evidence....":
Folks, all the articles Red posted are propaganda, often directly
funded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by
organizations that self profess a determination to show that the
Mormon Church is true.
> http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=45&previous...
>
> http://byustudies.byu.edu/chiasmus/
>
> http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=157&previou...
>
> http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=116&previou...
So Red provides us with nothing more than clap trap from church-owned
Brigham Young University -- an institution where the professors can
(and have) been fired for being critical of the LDS Church.
> > > You next
> > > respond with an alternative explanation to my points, and we go again
> > > in an interative process.
>
> > What verifiable, non-trivial evidence do you have that the Book of
> > Mormon is not a fraud?
>
> Uh, been posting it the past few days. You ever read the documents
> attached to my links like the ones I copied above?
I'm quite familiar with LDS propaganda, Red. I used to promote it, as
you do, when I was a religious fanatic like you.
> > > Again, ignoring the facts we post in response
>
> > What "facts" have you posted that invalidate the scientific community
> > [remember that your argument isn't with me, it's with the scientists.]
>
> There you go again.
That's right. And here I go again:
What "facts" have you posted that invalidate the scientific community
[remember that your argument isn't with me, it's with the scientists.]
> Only people who have no understanding of the
> scientific community claim that "the scientific community" supports
> their position and no other.
Well, here's your chance to rub my nose in it. Post references from
peer-review science journals that support any non-trivial claims of
the Book of Mormon.
> While articles critical of the Book of Mormon have been written by
> individual members of the scientific community
The scientists writing on DNA and the origin of the ancient Americans
don't mention the Book of Mormon at all. Ditto for the scientists who
describe ancient America as not having steel and horses.
The science exists independently of the Book of Mormon.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> researcher.
>
> BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (Texas A&M -
> ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> believe, a Bachelor's of Art in Physics (BYU -- not even ranked in the
> top 50 nationally).
Whether or not you have a degree doesn't make you a scientist -- it's
more about how you think.
You think you can ignore scientific evidence in favor of a burning in
your heart. That's the basis for your fanatical religious belief in a
book that describes the ancient Americans as Hebrews who arrived less
than 3,000 years ago.
No scientist in his right mind would think like that.
<snip to end>
Ramona
> On Jan 23, 11:20 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 8:37 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>
> > > Red
> > > Of course I'm not a Scientist! But isn't it okay for people to quote
> > > the findings of those who are?
>
> > You are mixing me up for something Duwayne Anderson posted. The way
> > these threadsd are listed in Google make it problematic to keep which
> > poster is posting straight, so its not unusual to mix up who said
> > what.
>
> > Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> > scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> > understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> > researcher.
>
> > BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (TexasA&M -
> > ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> > believe, a Bachelor's of Art in Physics (BYU -- not even ranked in the
> > top 50 nationally).
>
> By definition that would make Duwayne a scientist (physicist) and you
> an engineer.
> It seems Princeton is #1 and Texas A & M is #62, while BYU is not far
> behind at #79. Georgia Tech is tied at #35, go yellow jackets.
>
> I hope you realize how childish your attempt at legitimacy through
> rankings appears. Will you next desire to compare penis size and
> conclude the better lover based on that? Yes it's a bit strawman, but
> I would wager you are woefully insufficient and are attempting to
> bolster your ego this way. You probably also own a large truck and
> large dog.
>
> > So, both of us should understand the scientific method,
>
> Many of your writings strongly suggest you do not understand the first
> thing about scientific method.
> Here is an elementary version that I thought would aid your
** I stated Strawman when I actually should have written ad hominem.
Mea culpa.
npa...@insightbb.com
<there...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 23, 6:13=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 3:51 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>>
>> > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>>
>> > Nancy,
>> > Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
>> > on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
>>
>> > Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
>>
>> Neither, apparently, do facts.
>>
>> > A dialogue works like this: you say something, I address your points
>>
>> How have you addressed the science of DNA? =A0You are not a scientist,
>> so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
>
>Actually, I am a scientist. I have a degree in engineering from Texas
>A&M University, College Station, and I do advanced research on various
>engineering topics. While my expertise is not DNA, I am more than
>familiar with scientific methods and I have read through the FARMS
>material and determined that its scientific premises, basis, and
>reasoning are sound and supportable on that subject.
Red Copy: Oh my goodness. FARMS. You are so not a scientist.
>
>>
>> > and offer an alternative explanation and make my points.
>>
>> Hogwash! =A0A good "alternative explanation" to the Mormon story is that
>> the Book of Mormon is a fraud. =A0It's a very nice explanation, too, as
>> it's fully consistent with all the evidence.
>
>See, there you go again: a hasty generalization. "all the evidence"
>does not show the Book of Mormon is false. Indeed, there is *no*
>evidence that shows that it is false. Again, I have been reviewing
>such evidence for almost 30 years, and I haven't seen any yet.
How can fiction be false or true?
Would you say a romance novel is false? About what? And is a romance
novel true?
>
>I must mention that internal textual constructions argue that the Book
>of Mormon is authentic, such as the fact that Joseph Smith, Jr.,
>translated the Book of Mormon., yet he never used the term "Jr." to
>describe fathers and sons that share the same name -- the terms
>"younger" and "son of " were used. There is no concept of "Jr." in
>Hebrew of Egyptian. Also, the Book of Mormon contains acient Hebriew
>writing patterns such as chiasmus.
Puleeeze. Let's not go through that again.
>
>Here are some well researched articles that disagree with your
>statement that "all the evidence....":
Which articles are peer reviewed? Red Copy who is a scientist must
surely know the value of TRUE peer review. Mind you. Not the FARMS
kind where they had it off to their buddy next office over to for the
buddy to make sure that the tome is properly church apologetia.
>
>
>http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=3Djbms&id=3D45&previous=3D=
>L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA=3D=3D
>
>http://byustudies.byu.edu/chiasmus/
>
>http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=3Djbms&id=3D157&previous=
>=3DL3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA=3D=3D
>
>http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=3Djbms&id=3D116&previous=
>=3DL3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA=3D=3D
>
>
>>
>> > You next
>> > respond with an alternative explanation to my points, and we go again
>> > in an interative process.
>>
>> What verifiable, non-trivial evidence do you have that the Book of
>> Mormon is not a fraud?
>
>Uh, been posting it the past few days. You ever read the documents
>attached to my links like the ones I copied above?
>
>>
>> > Again, ignoring the facts we post in response
>>
>> What "facts" have you posted that invalidate the scientific community
>> [remember that your argument isn't with me, it's with the scientists.]
>
>There you go again. Only people who have no understanding of the
>scientific community claim that "the scientific community" supports
>their position and no other.
>
>While articles critical of the Book of Mormon have been written by
>individual members of the scientific community and have said Subject A
>indicates the Book of Mormon isn't true -- others members of the
>scientific community have written articles disagreeing with such an
>assertion.
And those peer reviewed articles are what Copy Red? You didn't list
them. Did youse fergit on purpose?
>
>>
>> > and simply reposting the
>> > same old same old doesn't work with us.
>>
>> Clearly. =A0But the posts are not for religious fanatics who're unable
>> to change their minds. =A0The posts are for the other readers on ARM.
Red Davis
> On Jan 23, 11:20 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 8:37 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>
> > > Red
> > > Of course I'm not a Scientist! But isn't it okay for people to quote
> > > the findings of those who are?
>
> > You are mixing me up for something Duwayne Anderson posted. The way
> > these threadsd are listed in Google make it problematic to keep which
> > poster is posting straight, so its not unusual to mix up who said
> > what.
>
> > Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> > scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> > understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> > researcher.
>
> > BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (TexasA&M -
> > ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> > believe, a Bachelor's of Art in Physics (BYU -- not even ranked in the
> > top 50 nationally).
>
> By definition that would make Duwayne a scientist (physicist) and you
> an engineer.
Nope. All engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are
engineers. A general engineer can do the work of a scientist, however
a general scientist can never do the work of an engineer -- they
simply do not have the practical background and expertise.
> You also may want to take a peek here:http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rank...
> It seems Princeton is #1 and Texas A & M is #62, while BYU is not far
> behind at #79. Georgia Tech is tied at #35, go yellow jackets.
Those are University rankings - not rankings of the science and
engineering schools. Such are ranked by their graduate programs --
not undergraduate:
Here are the rankings of science and engineering programs:
http://www.graduateshotline.com/ranks/
As you can see in this ranking, Texas A&M is 14th, Princeton 15th, BYU
is not ranked. BTW, Harvard, Penn State, and Northwestern are also
ranked behind Texas A&M.
Again, Texas A&M is 14th, with Princeton being 18th, Georgia Tech,
4th, and, of course, MIT first.
Geogia Tech is an excellent school. I have been there many times, and
I always get a Varsity dog.
>
> I hope you realize how childish your attempt at legitimacy through
> rankings appears. Will you next desire to compare penis size and
> conclude the better lover based on that? Yes it's a bit strawman, but
> I would wager you are woefully insufficient and are attempting to
> bolster your ego this way. You probably also own a large truck and
> large dog.
Nope, it was a button I like to push with Duwayne. Next thing you
know, he's going to tell us how he has patents for fibers, etc.....He
has this big "push my button" sign on all of his posts.
I don't own a truck or a dog. I have owned more Volvo's in my life
than any other car.
>
> > So, both of us should understand the scientific method,
>
> Many of your writings strongly suggest you do not understand the first
> thing about scientific method.
Really, let's see.
> Here is an elementary version that I thought would aid your
> understanding. You might pay particular heed to #4 and #5.http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_method
>
> If one uses the scientific method, one CHANGES one's knowledge based
> on findings when those findings are proven wrong time and time again.
Correct -- when they are "proven wrong". Now, that's the problem
isn't it? The proof.
As soon as you see something that "proves" my religion wrong, you will
post it, won't you?
> You ignore the findings and gain no new knowledge instead tossing out
> new facts and not reworking the hypothesis. You also sadly narrow
> your sources which I consider outliers and motivated to find very
> specific conclusions...just like the pharmaceutical companies
> mentioned in another thread.
I "narrow my sources"? That's an incredibly ignorant statement. I
read about 2-3 major writings a week that are against the LDS Church.
Now, please note I say they are "against the LDS Church." A look at
each argument, analyze it, and determine the merit. That is why I am
the one who has discredited Dick Baer and D. Michael Quinn.
> us are experts in DNA, though I have seen Duwayne pretend he is.
>
> I have watched your repeated claims to be a scientist while completely
> ignoring scientific method.
Really, where?
>
> > > If the BoM and what it says is true and if Joseph Smith is a Prophet of
> > > God and the LDS Church is the only true church on earth today, than
> > > than it will withstand all scrutiny, true?
>
> > That is correct. It will, and has, understood all scrutiny.
>
> It has also FAILED repeatedly under that understood scrutiny, yet you
> refuse to revise your hypothesis. At best that makes you a failed
> scientist.
OK, let's play this game. Your claim seems to be mountains of
evidence out there that scientifically proves the LDS Church and/or
the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith are false.
All I ask of you is this: take your very best shot, your very best
evidence, your very best scientific "proof" and post it right here. I
will take it and respond to it point-by-point, line-by-line, page-by-
page. Now, just post one, I have a life, you know -- and I certainly
have better things to do than show what a willy-nilly you are. But
make it the best proof ever that Mormonism is false, and I will
respond to it.
Now, this is what is at stake: After I respond and discredit your
best case that supposedly "proves" that Mormonism is false -- you must
admit publicly admit that the best case that Mormonism is false was
disproven.
Game? I am. This is similar to the same thing I did to Dick Baer --
and he ran.
So, here is the white space to post THE BEST CASE THAT MORMONISM IS
FALSE:
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
-Red Davis
Red Davis
wrote:
> On Jan 23, 8:20 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> > scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> > understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> > researcher.
>
> > BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (Texas A&M -
> > ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> > believe, a Bachelor's of Art in Physics (BYU -- not even ranked in the
> > top 50 nationally).
>
> Whether or not you have a degree doesn't make you a scientist -- it's
> more about how you think.
>
> You think you can ignore scientific evidence in favor of a burning in
> your heart. That's the basis for your fanatical religious belief in a
> book that describes the ancient Americans as Hebrews who arrived less
> than 3,000 years ago.
I have ignored no scientific evidence. I have posted scientific
evidence to the contrary about the DNA debate -- from scientists,
researchers, and scholars.
Where is your rebuttal to their work? You have not offered one.
Instead, you just wave your wand and click your heels and pretend it
wasn't posted.
Now, as to what you just posted about the Book of Mormon.
There you go again, falsely describing what is, and is not in the Book
of Mormon.
First, the Book of Mormon describes three migrations of people:
The Jaredites who came to the Americas 2,200 years B.C., the Nephites
who came to the Americas about 600 years B.C., and the Mulekites whose
time of migration occurred after Zedekiah was killed, but who became
part of the Nephites. It does not make the claim within its text that
it accounts for all populations in the Americas. It specifically
states that it only gives an account of these three groups. Thus, we
have three groups, one 4,200 years B.P., one 2,600 years B.P., another
that apparently migrated before the Nephites, so some time prevous to
2,600 years B.P.
I would say that the migration of three groups certainly begs the
queston could there have been more? I think so, you think not, there
is no science in play here. We simply disagree. However, you were
wrong and/or dishonest in describing the Book of Mormon as addressing
all migrations to the Americas. It does not.
So, there you go building another straw man falsely asserting that the
Book or Mormon teaches that *all* ancient inhabitants of the Americas
are accounted for by the Book of Mormon, when it makes no such claim.
>
> No scientist in his right mind would think like that.
Actually, no scientist would ever make the statements you just made --
they are in factual error. And not simple errors, but meaningful
errors, indeed, meaningful distortions. If the evidence is so great
against the Book of Mormon, why do you have to distort it?
Are you saying that no scientist can believe in God? I would submit
that an even greater leap of faith, more so than any discussion on
migrations and DNA, is the claim that a man died and rose again, or
that some being created man and earth.
Now, if it is true - that a person cannot be religious and a scientist
- than about 70% of the scientists in the world need to resign their
research positions. That's the percentage of how many believe in God,
Einstein and Newton being among those who believed in God.
-Red Davis
Red Davis
wrote:
> On Jan 23, 8:06 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > How have you addressed the science of DNA? You are not a scientist,
> > > so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
>
> > Actually, I am a scientist.
>
> Please list your peer-review papers dealing with DNA:
Oh, so now that you know I can meet the "scientific bar", you are not
attempting to move it higher by demanding "peer reviewed."
What's a matter, chicken? You said there was no scientific support or
evidence that explains any differences in DNA comparisons with the
Book of Mormon. None. That was your claim, wasn't it?
So, what about Dr. John M. Bulter? Do you think he is credible on
DNA? He is currently employed as a research chemist in the Biochemical
Science Division at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and
Technology, where he directs a project team developing new DNA
technologies for forensic and human identity applications.
Open your narrow mind, and read this:
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf
Would you say he is a credible source on DNA and its signficance with
the Book of Mormon? Oh, that's right, Dr. Butler is a Mormon --
Mormons are immediately disqualified.
How about Dr. Michael Whitling, an evolutionary biologist? Oh, that's
right, he is a Mormon too.
"There has been a tremendous flurry of media attention over the
scientific study of human genetic inheritance and the Book of Mormon.
That attention has swirled around declarations made by Thomas W.
Murphy, a doctoral candidate in anthropology, and current chair of the
anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Washington.
The storm clouds can be seen in a news article in the Los Angeles
Times that says of Mr. Murphy:
His conclusion is that "the Book of Mormon is a piece of 19th century
fiction," said Murphy, a lifelong Mormon who calls himself a Latter-
day skeptic. "And that means that we have to acknowledge sometimes
Joseph Smith lied."1
It is no wonder that with such conclusions it would appear that dark
clouds are forming on the horizon of the Book of Mormon. The clouds
appear especially dark when Murphy asserts that his conclusions are
supported by modern science. Could it really be that science is
proving the Book of Mormon wrong? This is Murphy's conclusion, but it
is a conclusion that does not flow from the evidence examined. Critics
of the Book of Mormon have come to the same conclusion as Murphy since
the book was first published. The difference is that Murphy is
claiming a new basis for his conclusion.
It is important to remember that Mr. Murphy is not citing his own
original research in genetics, but rather library research into the
work of others. He is synthesizing conclusions from his reading. This
is a critical difference, for it helps us understand why the
researchers can be right, but Mr. Murphy can be mistaken in his
reading of those researchers. It will help us explain why Dr. Michael
Whiting, an Evolutionary Biologist at Brigham Young University and "an
authority on DNA"2 does not believe that Mr. Murphy has his science
right.3 This is not a statement of fault in scientific method, because
Murphy is not engaged in this type of work. It is rather a statement
that his conclusions are not consonant with the science. When we
examine the nature of the data available, we find that Murphy's
particular conclusion does not flow from those data. He has asked the
wrong questions of his data, and by asking the wrong questions,
returns the wrong answers."
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_Studies_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
Nancy
You are mixing me up for something Duwayne Anderson posted. The way
these threadsd are listed in Google make it problematic to keep which
poster is posting straight, so its not unusual to mix up who said what.
I apologize, Red! It is confusing at times and not too long ago someone
replied to me to what someone else had posted.
BTW, I'm a writer and a translator, even though my typing stinks. I
make one typo after another. Thank God for
editors and secretaries. We all have different gifts to make the world
go around, don't we? Noone is an island onto himself!
We're not always right and it's important to see what others have to see
as there are always two sides of the coin. After all is said and done,
we than can make a "hopefully" better descision of what to do and/or
believe. And PTL, that's our God given right (or as Mormons say "our
free agency"
Nancy
mentioned in the BoM, including the hollow logs and explain the holes in
the bottom if possible as logs tumble. I always tried to visualize that
with people and animals in these 'carriers'
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jan 24, 9:21 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 8:20 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> > > scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> > > understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> > > researcher.
>
> > > BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (Texas A&M -
> > > ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> > > believe, a Bachelor's of Art in Physics (BYU -- not even ranked in the
> > > top 50 nationally).
>
> > Whether or not you have a degree doesn't make you a scientist -- it's
> > more about how you think.
>
> > You think you can ignore scientific evidence in favor of a burning in
> > your heart. That's the basis for your fanatical religious belief in a
> > book that describes the ancient Americans as Hebrews who arrived less
> > than 3,000 years ago.
>
> I have ignored no scientific evidence.
Sure you have. Here's an example of information from the scientific
literature that you've ignored:
"The genetic evidence is quite clear: all ancient migrants to the
Americas seem to have travelled via Siberia." [Page 144]
Spencer Wells has a Ph.D. from Harvard University focusing on
population genetics and evolution. He's the co-author of over thirty
scientific publications.
"Genetic studies demonstrate that Native Americans inherited their
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from a handful of founders who arrived from
Asia via Beringia [1],[2]" ["Beringian Standstill and Spread of
Native
American Founder," Erika Tamm, et. al,sPLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 6
September 2007 | Issue 9 | e829]
"These lines of evidence suggest that North America was peopled by a
single wave of
Asian migrants." ["The Structure of Diversity within New World
Mitochondrial DNA
Haplogroups: Implications for the Prehistory of North America," Ripan
S. Malhi et. al, ,Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70:905-919, 2002]
"Archeological evidence, as well as anatomical, linguistic, and
genetic evidence, have shown that the original human inhabitants of
the Western Hemisphere arrived from Asia
during the Late Pleistocene [1-4]. ["On the Number of New World
Founders: A Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the
Americas,"Jody Hey, PLoS Biology | www.plosbiology.org 0975 June 2005
| Volume 3 | Issue 6 | e193]
"...there is general agreement that America was first settled from
Asia
by people who migrated across Beringia, the pattern of migration, its
timing, and the place of origin in Asia of the people(s) that
migrated
to the Americas remain unclear (Fiedel 1992; Crawford 1998; Jablonski
2002)." ["Y-Chromosome Evidence for Differing Ancient Demographic
Histories in the Americas," Maria-Catira Bortolini, et al, Am. J.
Hum.
Genet. 73:524-539, 2003]
"There is general agreement that the Native American founder
populations migrated from Asia into America through Beringia sometime
during the Pleistocene, ..." ["Mitochondrial Genome Diversity of
Native
Americans Supports a Single Early Entry of Founder Populations into
America,"Wilson A. Silva Jr., et al, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 71:187-192,
2002]
> I have posted scientific
> evidence to the contrary about the DNA debate -- from scientists,
> researchers, and scholars.
Hogwash. You have't posted a single quotation from an article in any
peer-reviewed science journal that supports any non-trivial claim in
the Book of Mormon.
> Where is your rebuttal to their work?
What work?
> You have not offered one.
Hogwash. Here's a link that directly rebutts your silly argument
about chiasmus (hint: We know Smith wrote the BOM because he wrote
with chiasmus all over the place)
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/davow.html
And here's a link that uses statistics to show the Book of Mormon is a
fraud:
http://mormonism-proandcon.org/id9.html
> Instead, you just wave your wand and click your heels and pretend it
> wasn't posted.
Hogwash. I addressed each point. You, on the other hand, have
ignored all these questions:
> Now, as to what you just posted about the Book of Mormon.
>
> There you go again, falsely describing what is, and is not in the Book
> of Mormon.
Hogwash. I've quoted from the Book of Mormon and provided links to
the official LDS Internet site.
> First, the Book of Mormon describes three migrations of people:
Strawman -- nobody said it didn't.
> The Jaredites who came to the Americas 2,200 years B.C., the Nephites
> who came to the Americas about 600 years B.C., and the Mulekites whose
> time of migration occurred after Zedekiah was killed, but who became
> part of the Nephites.
And the scientific evidence (DNA, archeological, linguistic, etc.)
says none of that happened.
> It does not make the claim within its text that
> it accounts for all populations in the Americas.
Hogwash. The Book of Mormon says there were no other nations in the
Promised Land when Lehi arrived -- and it says he knew that from the
"spirit." The fact there *WERE* other people when Lehi supposedly
arrived about 2600 years ago proves the Book of Mormon is a fraud.
> It specifically
> states that it only gives an account of these three groups.
Because those were the only ones there.
> Thus, we
> have three groups, one 4,200 years B.P., one 2,600 years B.P., another
> that apparently migrated before the Nephites, so some time prevous to
> 2,600 years B.P.
>
> I would say that the migration of three groups certainly begs the
> queston could there have been more?
The fact that these civilizations are totally different than any that
actually existed in ancient America *should* have you asking why to
believe in this fraud.
> I think so, you think not, there
> is no science in play here.
Hogwash. Science tells us where the ancient Americans came from, the
languages they spoke, the foods they grew, the animals they used.
It's all different from the fairytale in the Book of Mormon.
> We simply disagree.
Your disagreement is with science.
> However, you were
> wrong and/or dishonest in describing the Book of Mormon as addressing
> all migrations to the Americas. It does not.
Lehi specifically says -- by the power of the "spirit" no less -- that
there were no other nations in the Promised Land when they got
there.
if the Book of Mormon is true, why do you feel the need to lie about
what it says?
> So, there you go building another straw man falsely asserting that the
> Book or Mormon teaches that *all* ancient inhabitants of the Americas
> are accounted for by the Book of Mormon, when it makes no such claim.
Hogwash. It certainly does. Furthermore, the D&C has your god
explaining where to find the Lamanites -- and he said they were in the
Americas.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jan 24, 8:55 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 8:06 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > How have you addressed the science of DNA? You are not a scientist,
> > > > so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
>
> > > Actually, I am a scientist.
>
> > Please list your peer-review papers dealing with DNA:
>
> Oh, so now that you know I can meet the "scientific bar", you are not
> attempting to move it higher by demanding "peer reviewed."
Nobody's surprised that you can't do it.
> What's a matter, chicken?
Typical apologetic argument.
> You said there was no scientific support or
> evidence that explains any differences in DNA comparisons with the
> Book of Mormon. None. That was your claim, wasn't it?
That's right. And if you want to assert that something is "scientific
evidence" you need to show it's good enough to get from a scientific
source.
Apologetic propaganda published by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) doesn't qualify.
> So, what about Dr. John M. Bulter?
The medical doctor? The apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, who wrote his work in an apologetic magazine?
> Do you think he is credible on
> DNA?
No.
> He is currently employed as a research chemist in the Biochemical
> Science Division at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and
> Technology, where he directs a project team developing new DNA
> technologies for forensic and human identity applications.
So why can't he get his apologetic material published in a peer-review
science journal?
> Open your narrow mind, and read this:
>
> http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf
I have read it. It's a mess. No wonder he couldn't get it published
in a peer-reviewed science journal.
> Would you say he is a credible source on DNA and its signficance with
> the Book of Mormon?
No. I'd say the fact his work isn't publishable in a peer-reviewed
science journal says "no," too.
> Oh, that's right, Dr. Butler is a Mormon --
> Mormons are immediately disqualified.
Oh, that's right. When their scholarship isn't up to snuff they haul
out the persecution complex.
> How about Dr. Michael Whitling, an evolutionary biologist? Oh, that's
> right, he is a Mormon too.
Oh, that's right. When their scholarship isn't up to snuff they haul
out the persecution complex.
> "There has been a tremendous flurry of media attention over the
> scientific study of human genetic inheritance and the Book of Mormon.
> That attention has swirled around declarations made by Thomas W.
> Murphy, a doctoral candidate in anthropology, and current chair of the
> anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Washington.
> The storm clouds can be seen in a news article in the Los Angeles
> Times that says of Mr. Murphy:
>
> His conclusion is that "the Book of Mormon is a piece of 19th century
> fiction," said Murphy, a lifelong Mormon who calls himself a Latter-
> day skeptic. "And that means that we have to acknowledge sometimes
> Joseph Smith lied."1
The evidence against the Book of Mormon is *MUCH* bigger than just the
DNA evidence. You ignored, for example, the other reasons I listed,
including BOM descriptions of ancient Americans smelting steel/iron
and using domesticated horses.
In fact, FAIR (your propaganda machine) lied recently when they said
the BOM doesn't describe steel swords. Why would FAIR feel the need
to lie about the BOM like that, if it was really true?
> It is no wonder that with such conclusions it would appear that dark
> clouds are forming on the horizon of the Book of Mormon. The clouds
> appear especially dark when Murphy asserts that his conclusions are
> supported by modern science.
Which they are.
> Could it really be that science is
> proving the Book of Mormon wrong?
It did that long ago.
> This is Murphy's conclusion, but it
> is a conclusion that does not flow from the evidence examined. Critics
> of the Book of Mormon have come to the same conclusion as Murphy since
> the book was first published. The difference is that Murphy is
> claiming a new basis for his conclusion.
>
> It is important to remember that Mr. Murphy is not citing his own
> original research in genetics, but rather library research into the
> work of others.
That's what makes his conclusions so strong. You can't say his work
is wrong because he is an evil "anti-Mormon," because he has explained
the position of the scientific community.
<snip rest of anti-science clap trap>
Nancy
Date: Jan 20 18:14
Author: Richard Packham
Apparently Hagoth's ships really were lost at sea. The Polynesians came
from Taiwan, long before Hagoth.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (Texas A&M -
> ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton),
This has got to be the most ridiculous appeals to authority I've ever
seen. Imagine that! An engineer with a Bachelor's degree who
pretends to know more about archeology and DNA than the scientific
community!
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Nope. All engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are
> engineers. A general engineer can do the work of a scientist, however
> a general scientist can never do the work of an engineer -- they
> simply do not have the practical background and expertise.
You're only a scientist if you're thinking like one. And you're not
thinking like one when you ignore scientific evidence in favor of a
burning in your bosom; when you do that your just plain ol'
superstitious.
Nancy
紐. L. Measures
npa...@insightbb.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:06:41 -0800 (PST), Red Davis
> <there...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 23, 6:13=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Jan 23, 3:51 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
> >>
> >> > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
> >>
> >> > Nancy,
> >> > Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> >> > on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
> >>
> >> > Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
> >>
> >> Neither, apparently, do facts.
> >>
> >> > A dialogue works like this: you say something, I address your points
> >>
> >> How have you addressed the science of DNA? =A0You are not a scientist,
> >> so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
> >
> >Actually, I am a scientist. I have a degree in engineering from Texas
> >A&M University, College Station, and I do advanced research on various
> >engineering topics. While my expertise is not DNA, I am more than
> >familiar with scientific methods and I have read through the FARMS
> >material and determined that its scientific premises, basis, and
> >reasoning are sound and supportable on that subject.
>
> Red Copy: Oh my goodness. FARMS. You are so not a scientist.
** NP -- Mormon truthfulness is an oxymoron.
> >
> >...
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> So, what about Dr. John M. Bulter? Do you think he is credible on
> DNA? He is currently employed as a research chemist in the Biochemical
> Science Division at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and
> Technology, where he directs a project team developing new DNA
> technologies for forensic and human identity applications.
>
> Open your narrow mind, and read this:
>
> http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf
<snip>
As with many arguments from LDS apologists, Butler's article is based
on two things:
1) Distorting and misrepresenting LDS scriptures
2) Distorting and misrepresenting science
This is the DAM (distort and misrepresent) argumentative style used so
frequently by other notorious apologists for the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, such as Hugh Nibley.
Let's look at a specific example. Butler claims that the Book of
Mormon doesn't specifically say that all the Jaredites were
destroyed. He does this so he can imply that the Book of Mormon is
consistent with an Asian (in part) origin for the Native Americans.
Butler argues that the Jaredites might have been from Asia, might have
intermingled with the Nephites, overwhelming the DNA evidence of
Hebrews, leaving us with the predominate markers pointing to Asia.
There are problems with his argument all over the place.
1) DNA analysis used to track migrations also looks at the time of
migration, and the Asians ancestors of the Native Americans came to
the Western Hemisphere about 10,000 years before the fictional
Jaredites. So the Jaredite explanation, even if it was consistent
with the Book of Mormon, doesn't solve the conflict between the Book
of Mormon and science.
2) Butler's argument undermines other key apologetic arguments (this
is a common problem - LDS apologists can't seem to keep their
arguments straight). That is, if a small band of Jaredites could
overwhelm the DNA evidence from a *huge* civilization of Nephites/
Lamanites, then how can other Mormon apologists argue elsewhere that
the Nephite/Lamanite DNA was all washed out by intermingling with pre-
existing Native Americans?
Apologists have become so desperate that they've tried to adopt the
scattergun approach in which every possible explanation is tabled.
The problem is these explanations are not all consistent, so one day
the apologists are arguing that a small band of Nephites lost their
DNA among the masses of indigenous Native Americans, and the next day
they are suggesting that a small band of Jaredites overwhelmed the DNA
markers of the masses of Nephites.
It's a mess, an absolute mess of circular and inconsistent arguments
that only a religious fanatic could love.
Let's revisit Butler's argument about the Jaredites. For folks
unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites were a group of
people that god supposedly brought to the Americas at the time of the
tower of Babel. [As a side note, we see here a perfect example of the
Biblical literalism that underlies much of Mormonism. Mormons believe
in the literal universal flood, and are literal creationists, too.]
The Jaredites supposedly came to the Americas several thousand years
BCE and established a huge civilization that used elephants and
smelted iron/steel. [All the non-trivial descriptions of the Jaredite
civilization are hopelessly inconsistent with archeology.] Toward the
end of the Jaredite civilization a prophet comes to the king and says
this:
Ether 13:20-21 "And in the second year the word of the Lord came to
Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he
would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his
kingdom and spare the people--Otherwise they should be destroyed, and
all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see
the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning
another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and
Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be
destroyed save it were Coriantumr."
Notice that the prophecy says god will save the people *and*
Coriantumr's household *if* Coriantumr repented. Otherwise *only*
Coriantumr would live to see another group of people come to the land.
Here's the link to the official LDS Internet site where you can read
the whole thing in context:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/13/20-21#20
Well, Coriantumr doesn't repent. We fast forward to Ether 15:33 where
the prophet goes to the scene of the final battle. Here's what the
Book of Mormon says:
Ether 15: 33 "And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go
forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had
all been fulfilled;"
If the prophecy had been fulfilled, then *ONLY* Coriantumr was left.
So Butler's desperation has reached the point of trying to defend the
Book of Mormon by denying the fulfillment of prophecy and the truth of
god's word that's supposedly in the Book of Mormon. It must have been
a difficult pill to swallow, and one that Butler would not have gagged
upon unless he understands the desperate situation for the Book of
Mormon with regard to the DNA evidence showing it's a fraud.
Truly, desperate times call for desperate measures.
The problem is, even *if* Butler's argument about Coriantumr is right,
it still wouldn't help the Book of Mormon and its problems with
science. That's where the second apologetic trick comes in -
misrepresenting science.
You see, when scientists use DNA analysis to track human migrations
they don't look at individual families, and often they don't even look
at individual tribes. They look at regional pockets of specific DNA
markers and study how those markers appear (from random mutations)
over time.
That means that the DNA trail that scientists track has a *timeline,*
and the timeline for Asian migration into the Americas predates the
mythical Jaredites by about 10,000 years.
Butler messes with the science in other ways, too. For example, he
uses Nibley's DAM argumentative style by saying it's unclear whether
or not Lehi's descendants would have been Manasseh, Joseph, Jacob,
Isaac and Abraham as ancestors - which is entirely and completely
beside the point when tracking migrations via DNA mutations, since the
science of such studies are based on movements across geographical
areas, and are not based on assumptions of specific family
genealogies.
So I ask my oft-repeated question. If Mormonism is true, why do
Mormon apologists feel the need to misrepresent the Book of Mormon?
If they really believed in the book, would they feel the need to lie
about what it says?
Doesn't the very nature of LDS apologetics suggest that these people
know the Book of Mormon is a fraud? And if they know it's a fraud,
doesn't that mean they - and the leaders of the church - are helping
to perpetuate a fraud?
Ramona
> On Jan 24, 9:21 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 8:20 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> > > scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> > > understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> > > researcher.
>
> > > BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (Texas A&M -
You really don't read very much do you Red? Actually only 7% of the
517 National Academy of Sciences members queried believed in a
personal God. You have heard of the National Academy of Sciences,
have you not? They are comprised of actual scientists not people like
you that only claim the title. Not only are they scientists, but they
are the leading scientists in their respective fields.
You claim Einstein as a believer, but Stephen Hawking uses words that
sound overtly religious because of expression not because of actual
belief. Einstein was clearly agnostic. Here is a marvelous quote:
"Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious
(Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an
abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular
scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the
stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a
positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression
that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every
kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude...
has never left me..."
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html
Why is it you must play with the truth at every turn Red? It is so
sad.
Ramona
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Are you saying that no scientist can believe in God? I would submit
> that an even greater leap of faith, more so than any discussion on
> migrations and DNA, is the claim that a man died and rose again, or
> that some being created man and earth.
>
> Now, if it is true - that a person cannot be religious and a scientist
> - than about 70% of the scientists in the world need to resign their
> research positions. That's the percentage of how many believe in God,
I notice you didn't provide a citation. That's not surprising, since
your naked assertion isn't true. Here are some links/info that will
set the record straight.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
"The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated
since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the
top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever -- almost
total."
"Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James
H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000
randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the
existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400
"greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey
in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these
percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2]."
"In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in
Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists
generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we
closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge
belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower
than ever -- a mere 7% of respondents."
"Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among
"greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and
experience" [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins
commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have
religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in
the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories
of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of
Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of
"greater" and "lesser" scientists."
"Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection
of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and
immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%,
respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and
76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few
believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS
mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological
scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in
immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in
God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914,
1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1."
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
> Einstein and Newton being among those who believed in God.
You've just got to stop drining the koolaid, Red. Here's a link that
can help set you straight:
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html
Ramona
> On Jan 24, 8:55 am, Ramona <atlram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 11:20 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 8:37 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>
> > > > Red
> > > > Of course I'm not a Scientist! But isn't it okay for people to quote
> > > > the findings of those who are?
>
> > > You are mixing me up for something Duwayne Anderson posted. The way
> > > these threadsd are listed in Google make it problematic to keep which
> > > poster is posting straight, so its not unusual to mix up who said
> > > what.
>
> > > Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> > > scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> > > understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> > > researcher.
>
> > > BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (TexasA&M -
> > > ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> > > top 50 nationally).
>
> > By definition that would make Duwayne a scientist (physicist) and you
> > an engineer.
>
> Nope. All engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are
> engineers. A general engineer can do the work of a scientist, however
> a general scientist can never do the work of an engineer -- they
> simply do not have the practical background and expertise.
>
"It was never enough for me to just understand a problem. I always
wanted to solve it. I am an engineer, not a scientist. Solving
difficult problems is what engineers do."
http://engineering.tamu.edu/research/magazine/2006/lightson/
I do so hate to burst your little ego bubble, but I am also intimately
acquainted with the field of electrical engineering. I am even more
unimpressed that you don't hold a graduate level degree, like me.
Perhaps that is why your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese.
First, rankings are only valid for the particular year. Perhaps you
are not familiar, but universities move up and down the rankings
annually. Are you also aware of how rankings are determined? Many
questions posed to universities can be likened to picking a homecoming
queen, in other words, name recognition and popularity based on that
recognition. Knowing this, many universities are not submitting
information to the various groups organizing the information or only
partially disclosing rendering the rankings invalid. It is no small
wonder that BYU's rankings have dropped in recent years. You should
be familiar with the academic witch-hunt at BYU.
Second, rankings also vary from one deriving the values to another.
As you should well have noticed, from US World and News, USA Today,
and graduateshotline many universities were not at the same spot
clearly suggesting very different standards.
Third, while you showed science and engineering rankings you did not
show anything regarding the separate field of physics. While many
classes do override, it is a separate field as you should be well
aware.
Clearly this shows that unlike those in engineering, physicists are
researchers and qualify as scientist. http://physics.tamu.edu/dept/welcome.html
This defines science and who qualifies as scientist:
Therefore those fields of study which attempt to describe and
understand the nature of the universe on a "whole" scale such as
physics and chemistry would fit our definition but so would those
fields which study it in "part" such as biology whose field has been
limited to only those life forms on Earth.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
Here is an interesting title of a book.
Physics for Scientists and Engineers *Note that the book is not
titled Physics for Scientist Engineers or Engineering Scientist, but
Scientists AND Engineer which strongly suggest two different fields of
study.
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Chapters-CD-ROM/dp/0030317169
To wrap it up nicely, engineers are not scientists on average, but
build things. Physicists are scientists.
Fourth, by insulting BYU's program you have rendered ALL BYU studies
invalid. You have driven the point that BYU produces inferior
students and inferior studies. Thank you for that. We now no longer
have to see any of your ridiculous self-interested studies from BYU
and FARM. Thank you again for doing so.
Fifth, please produce studies from Texas A & M that show non-Siberian
land bridge Ancient Native American migration.
Sixth, see fourth.
> > You also may want to take a peek here:http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rank...
> > It seems Princeton is #1 and Texas A & M is #62, while BYU is not far
> > behind at #79. Georgia Tech is tied at #35, go yellow jackets.
>
> Those are University rankings - not rankings of the science and
> engineering schools. Such are ranked by their graduate programs --
> not undergraduate:
>
> Here are the rankings of science and engineering programs:
>
> http://www.graduateshotline.com/ranks/
>
> As you can see in this ranking, Texas A&M is 14th, Princeton 15th, BYU
> is not ranked. BTW, Harvard, Penn State, and Northwestern are also
> ranked behind Texas A&M.
>
> http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/ran...
>
> Again, Texas A&M is 14th, with Princeton being 18th, Georgia Tech,
> 4th, and, of course, MIT first.
>
> Geogia Tech is an excellent school. I have been there many times, and
> I always get a Varsity dog.
GT is a great University. I am unsure why you put Princeton in the
group though. When I think engineering, I don't think Princeton.
You have a heartier gastronomic system than I. But then what passed
for food when I was younger, is no longer palatable.
>
>
>
> > I hope you realize how childish your attempt at legitimacy through
> > rankings appears. Will you next desire to compare penis size and
> > conclude the better lover based on that? Yes it's a bit strawman, but
> > I would wager you are woefully insufficient and are attempting to
> > bolster your ego this way. You probably also own a large truck and
> > large dog.
>
> Nope, it was a button I like to push with Duwayne. Next thing you
> know, he's going to tell us how he has patents for fibers, etc.....He
> has this big "push my button" sign on all of his posts.
>
> I don't own a truck or a dog. I have owned more Volvo's in my life
> than any other car.
Then I was wrong. You clearly gave the impression of the typical good
'ole boy. Y'all know what I'm talking about.
>
>
>
> > > So, both of us should understand the scientific method,
>
> > Many of your writings strongly suggest you do not understand the first
> > thing about scientific method.
>
> Really, let's see.
>
> > Here is an elementary version that I thought would aid your
> > understanding. You might pay particular heed to #4 and #5.http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_method
>
> > If one uses the scientific method, one CHANGES one's knowledge based
> > on findings when those findings are proven wrong time and time again.
>
> Correct -- when they are "proven wrong". Now, that's the problem
> isn't it? The proof.
> As soon as you see something that "proves" my religion wrong, you will
> post it, won't you?
I have as well as have others. You have compartmentalized your
religion to the point that you are unwilling and/or unable to see the
fact pattern.
>
> > You ignore the findings and gain no new knowledge instead tossing out
> > new facts and not reworking the hypothesis. You also sadly narrow
> > your sources which I consider outliers and motivated to find very
> > specific conclusions...just like the pharmaceutical companies
> > mentioned in another thread.
>
> I "narrow my sources"? That's an incredibly ignorant statement.
You ONLY have presented me BYU/FARMS studies, which clearly based on
your above statements of inferiority, I should reject.
> I
> read about 2-3 major writings a week that are against the LDS Church.
What an incredible waste of time. I now actually pity you.
> Now, please note I say they are "against the LDS Church." A look at
> each argument, analyze it, and determine the merit. That is why I am
> the one who has discredited Dick Baer and D. Michael Quinn.
>
> > us are experts in DNA, though I have seen Duwayne pretend he is.
>
> > I have watched your repeated claims to be a scientist while completely
> > ignoring scientific method.
>
> Really, where?
Do I call you on the phone? No. Do I email you? No. Do I associate
with you in any place other than here on ARM? No. Then by golly it
must be here.
>
>
>
> > > > If the BoM and what it says is true and if Joseph Smith is a Prophet of
> > > > God and the LDS Church is the only true church on earth today, than
> > > > than it will withstand all scrutiny, true?
>
> > > That is correct. It will, and has, understood all scrutiny.
>
> > It has also FAILED repeatedly under that understood scrutiny, yet you
> > refuse to revise your hypothesis. At best that makes you a failed
> > scientist.
>
> OK, let's play this game. Your claim seems to be mountains of
> evidence out there that scientifically proves the LDS Church and/or
> the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith are false.
>
> All I ask of you is this: take your very best shot, your very best
> evidence, your very best scientific "proof" and post it right here. I
> will take it and respond to it point-by-point, line-by-line, page-by-
> page. Now, just post one, I have a life, you know -- and I certainly
> have better things to do than show what a willy-nilly you are. But
> make it the best proof ever that Mormonism is false, and I will
> respond to it.
As I have said time and time again, only ONE false prophecy excludes
Joseph Smith. I have already responded to this question with no
response from you. There is no sense in repeating the same.
>
> Now, this is what is at stake: After I respond and discredit your
> best case that supposedly "proves" that Mormonism is false -- you must
> admit publicly admit that the best case that Mormonism is false was
> disproven.
>
> Game? I am. This is similar to the same thing I did to Dick Baer --
> and he ran.
>
> So, here is the white space to post THE BEST CASE THAT MORMONISM IS
> FALSE:
As I stated previously on another thread, mormonism is false because
it's creator was a false/failed prophet. Per your bible a prophet
proves himself false with only one false prophecy. Joseph Smith
failed repeatedly just try reading your D & C.
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
>
> -Red Davis
mg
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
Mormons believe that the LDS church is the one and only true church.
They also believe that the president of the church is a living
"Prophet, Seer and Revelator". That being the case, Mormons ought to
ask themselves at least two questions:
1. Why do they feel so motivated to defend God's church? If God feels
that it is necessary to defend his church, isn't he capable of doing
so without the help of members who are not authorized to speak for the
church?
2. If the church presidency were to issue a proclamation/manifesto/
revelation stating that the events reported in the Book of Mormon
didn't take place in the Americas, would they be willing or able to
following their leadership in that change in beliefs?
紐. L. Measures
<71c3af16-1a84-407d...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps that is why your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese....
** Ramona: I find it somewhat curious that Red did not say what kind of
engineering his "Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering" is in. cheers
紐. L. Measures
<17502720-f9b6-43a2...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, mg
<mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 4:36 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
> > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>
> Mormons believe that the LDS church is the one and only true church.
> They also believe that the president of the church is a living
> "Prophet, Seer and Revelator". That being the case, Mormons ought to
> ask themselves at least two questions:
>
> 1. Why do they feel so motivated to defend God's church? If God feels
> that it is necessary to defend his church, isn't he capable of doing
> so without the help of members who are not authorized to speak for the
> church?
** Indeed MG. If the LdS church is God's one true church, I am wondering
why God told the RCC that blacks were okay with him in 1885, yet He didn't
get around to telling the LdS church this until 1978 ?
>
> 2.... ...
Red Davis
wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:52 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 8:55 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 8:06 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > How have you addressed the science of DNA? You are not a scientist,
> > > > > so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
>
> > > > Actually, I am a scientist.
>
> > > Please list your peer-review papers dealing with DNA:
>
> > Oh, so now that you know I can meet the "scientific bar", you are not
> > attempting to move it higher by demanding "peer reviewed."
>
> Nobody's surprised that you can't do it.
>
> > What's a matter, chicken?
>
> Typical apologetic argument.
>
> > You said there was no scientific support or
> > evidence that explains any differences in DNA comparisons with the
> > Book of Mormon. None. That was your claim, wasn't it?
>
> That's right. And if you want to assert that something is "scientific
> evidence" you need to show it's good enough to get from a scientific
> source.
Let's get you on the record: It is your position that scientific
evidence proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, the following:
A) The native populations of the Americas (e.g., those that have not
migrated since, say, 1500) are exclusively descendants of "Asians"
B) There exists, genetically speaking, a DNA marker that defines all
"Asians" and that those who have the marker cannot have ancestors from
any other population.
D) There exists, genetically speaking, a DNA marker that defines all
"Jews" and that those who do not have the marker *cannot* have any
Jewish ancestors.
D) Populations identified today as "Asian" and "Jewish" are from the
same exclusive set of ancestors as those that would have been defined
as "Asian" or "Jewish" some 2,500 years ago (in other words, no
external populations have joined these groups since that time -- only
constant inbreeding among a stagnant population).
E) Thus, the scientific community as a whole, without any dissenting
voices and completey united in 100% agreement, have concluded that,
based on this DNA/genetic evidence, the Book of Mormon is a fraud.
Is this correct? You have "scientific proof" that supports all that?
Wow, or are you drinking that firewater again?
-Red Davis
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Let's get you on the record: It is your position that scientific
> evidence proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, the following:
>
> A) The native populations of the Americas (e.g., those that have not
> migrated since, say, 1500) are exclusively descendants of "Asians"
No scientist I know would use the word "exclusively." And "exclusive"
isn't what's needed to prove the Book of Mormon false.
The scientific consensus is more along the lines of "predominantly."
> B) There exists, genetically speaking, a DNA marker that defines all
> "Asians" and that those who have the marker cannot have ancestors from
> any other population.
You really don't know how scientists use DNA to trace migrations, do
you?
The way scientists would say it is that mutations and time scales
associated with DNA in populations of Asians and ancient Americans
shows that the founding populations of ancient Americans came from
Asia.
> D) There exists, genetically speaking, a DNA marker that defines all
> "Jews" and that those who do not have the marker *cannot* have any
> Jewish ancestors.
Again, you need to familiarize yourself with the science. The
scientific evidence points to people migrating to the Americas via
Asia from Africa. The arrived in the Americas roughly 13,000 years
ago, and left Africa roughly 50,000 years ago.
Needless to say this explanation by science is totally at odds with
the Book of Mormon.
> D) Populations identified today as "Asian" and "Jewish" are from the
> same exclusive set of ancestors as those that would have been defined
> as "Asian" or "Jewish" some 2,500 years ago (in other words, no
> external populations have joined these groups since that time -- only
> constant inbreeding among a stagnant population).
Where have I said that? Your strawman arguments are shameless.
> E) Thus, the scientific community as a whole, without any dissenting
> voices and completey united in 100% agreement, have concluded that,
> based on this DNA/genetic evidence, the Book of Mormon is a fraud.
Again the strawman argument. Consensus doesn't mean 100%. It means
the vast majority. There will always be a nut here or there who
disagrees with the science (like Butler) -- often for religious
reasons.
> Is this correct?
No, it's not correct. It's not what I said -- it's just a shameless
attempt at setting up strawman arguments by an apologist for the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
> You have "scientific proof" that supports all that?
I posted references from the scientific literature. Why don't you read
them?
On the flip side, the only reference you've posted is from a fellow
apologist (Butler) who had to lie about what the Book of Mormon says,
to make his point.
> Wow, or are you drinking that firewater again?
There's little question about who is doing that, Red. You ever going
to answer the questions I asked?
Red Davis
You mean like the Jaredite barges?
First, I note that the Jaredites had previous ship building experience
prior to building their barges to cross the "many waters". It is
notable that the Book of Ether mentions such prior experience -- as
ship building is an extraordinary skillset - even today. So, they were
experienced ship builders who were given specific instructions by the
Lord in how to build a special ship.
Second, I note that "clear, white" molten rocks (e.g., melted so that
they became "transparent") were used by the Jaredites to light their
vessels with artificial light. The power source came from the Lord
touching them with His finger. If you have ever seen a large piece of
fiber-optics, you could well describe it as "clear" or "white"
depending upon the angle of observation. Interesting thing about
fiber-optics -- we construct them from silicon - which is found
naturally in rocks, and is removed via a process of heating the rock,
or from "molten rock".
Third, the size of the holes in the barges is never mentioned. But,
we do know it would need to be large enough to provide fresh air for
those within the barge. The fact that holes were put in both the top
and bottom, does not mean:
a) that they were the same size
b) that they were used for the same purpose
c) that the ships rolled
Fourth, it is my personal belief that the Jaredites traveled to
several lands before they reached the promised land. I arrive at this
personal opinion by three things:
1) Moroni states in the first chapter of Ether -- that he is only
going to give us a partial account of the Jaredite record
2) The trip across the Pacific should have taken a few months -- it
took almost a year
3) The Jaredite recored states they crossed "many waters", which
could hint at stopping and starting their journey several times
4) The need to re-supply and rest for such a long voyage.
5) The hole in the floor could well have been for hygene, to clean
the vessels as they went from land mass to land mass and resupplied
and restocked. In other words, they would dry dock the ships and
clean them. A hole in the floor would make such so nice.
Again, this is my *personal* opinon on the matter -- I certainly do
not speak for the Church.
6) the barge's ends were described as "peaked", and I have often
wondered if this alluded to a possible bulbous bow and tailcone. The
vessel would be completely unstable if only one end or the other was
"peaked".
So, when you speak of them as "logs", you aren't even close. They
were vessels of remarkable engineering feat.
-Red Davis
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jan 24, 9:06 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>
> > You said you're a Engineer. So what do you think about the ships/barges
> > mentioned in the BoM, including the hollow logs and explain the holes in
> > the bottom if possible as logs tumble. I always tried to visualize that
> > with people and animals in these 'carriers'
>
> You mean like the Jaredite barges?
>
> First, I note that the Jaredites had previous ship building experience
> prior to building their barges to cross the "many waters".
To have "ship building experience" they first had to exist.
Prove the Jaredites existed.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to tems with Mormonism and
紐. L. Measures
<a01a87a2-52a3-4241...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
• Red could not care less.
Red Davis
wrote:
> > does not show the Book of Mormon is false. Indeed, there is *no*
> > evidence that shows that it is false.
>
> American cultures. It's wrong in every case (if you think it's right,
> then name the great ancient American cultures that had these things,
> and back them up with verifiable objective evidence from the
> scientific literature):
>
> 1) Horses
So, are you saying there were no horses in Ancient America, only after
Europeans came over?
> 2) Iron/steel smelting
There you go again, falsely making up things and putting them into the
Book of Mormon.
Why do you lie so much? Why do you hate Mormons so much?
Where does the Book of Mormon describe the Nephites as "smelting" iron
or steel? Answer: No where.
How many times is steel mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
Answer: five times according to my Topical Guide, the last being 400
B.C.
The first two reference weapons of war Nephi brought from the MIddle
East, Laban's Sword, and his bow of steel. One is during the Jaredite
period, leaving twice when simple lists of materials are given.
Now, question: besides Laban's sword and Nephi's bow -- what items
does the Book of Mormon describe as being made out of steel by the
Nephites?
Answer: not one thing.
So, we don't have any items being specifically mentioned as being made
out of steel by the Nephites, we don't even have the word "steel
"being mentioned after 400 B.C. (The Book of Mormon covers 600 B.C. to
about 420 A.D) What happened to all the steel and "smelting" you were
falsely attributing to the Book of Mormon?
Why do you lie so much? Why do you hate the Mormons so much?
> 4) Used Hebrew & Egyptian
"Used Hebrew"? Why do you hate the Mormons so much?
Languages from cultures that become isolated often quickly diverge.
Take for example: we Americans and the Brittish. Been to Brittain
lately? Understand a word they say? And that with modern
communications.
> 5) Came to the Americas from points in/near the Middle East a few
> thousand years ago
Yep, sure did.
> 6) Planted and harvested Old World plants
Did they? You mean people can't use the same name for completely
different things of similar makeup? That translators can't use the
closets word possible to desribe something that doesn't exist in the
target language?
Well, I played football in high school. I was a linebacker.
I had a friend who played football in high school. He was a 3.
I had a friend who played football in high school. He was a striker.
Did we all play the same game? Nope. Something is getting lost in
translation. I played "football", the friend that was a "3" played
rugby, and the friend that was a "striker" played soccor.
Get the picture?
Why do you hate Mormons so?
>
> > Again, I have been reviewing
> > such evidence for almost 30 years, and I haven't seen any yet.
>
> No surprise there -- got to take your hands off your eyes. But nobody
> expects you to do that. As a religious fanatic there is no specific
> set of verifiable actions that the prophet might do that would deprive
> him of your sustaining vote. With such bone-headed determination to
> "follow the prophet," I'd be surprised if you *did* see any evidence
> proving the Book of Mormon false.
There you go again: loving those Mormons. ;-)
I have repeatedly posted what the conditions are for me to follow the
counsel of the President of the Church and/or other LDS Church
leaders. You just don't like the answer -- because it is a very good
one: I go into private prayer, and I ask God if it be right...
All that I have ever been asked to do is follow Christ.
>
> > I must mention that internal textual constructions argue that the Book
> > of Mormon is authentic,
>
> Actually, statistical analysis of month dates shows it's a clumsy
> fraud. See the following link:
>
> http://mormonism-proandcon.org/id9.html
What a laugh!!! You call that science? Seriously? You're pulling my
leg? Stop it! My side hurts!!!
That is your proof the Book of Mormon is false? Absurd misapplication
of statistics to the Book of Alma?
Well, you also just proved that the Book of Leviticus is a FAKE!!! HA-
HA-HA-HA-HE-HE-HE!
Lev. 23: 5-6, 24, 32, 39
5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's
passover.
6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of
unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened
bread.
* * *
24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month,
in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of
blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.
* * *
32 It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your
souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even,
shall ye celebrate your sabbath.
* * *
39 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have
gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD
seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day
shall be a sabbath.
Now, can events such as the start of wars be considered as occurring
on "random" dates like the roll of dice?
You sir, have no understanding of the application of statistics.
>
> >such as the fact that Joseph Smith, Jr.,
> > translated the Book of Mormon., yet he never used the term "Jr." to
> > describe fathers and sons that share the same name
>
> You must be joking.
Nope. Why didn't Joseph Smith describe all the sons who had their
Father's name as "junior"? He was, after all, Joseph Smith, Jr.
>
> > -- the terms
> > "younger" and "son of " were used. There is no concept of "Jr." in
> > Hebrew of Egyptian. Also, the Book of Mormon contains acient Hebriew
> > writing patterns such as chiasmus.
>
> Smith's other writings are full of Chiasmus -- proving he wrote the
> Book of Mormon. See the following link:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/davow.html
>
Did you even read this link? To borrow a phrase from Princess Bride,
"I do not think that webpage says what you think it says"
Oh, BTW, besides the fact this website doesn't support what you said,
where is your scientific proof? Stooping to ad-lib web pages by chose
randomly out of desparation?
Why do you hate Mormons so?
> > Here are some well researched articles that disagree with your
> > statement that "all the evidence....":
>
> Folks, all the articles Red posted are propaganda, often directly
> funded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by
> organizations that self profess a determination to show that the
> Mormon Church is true.
There you go again: killing the messenger. The scientific process
that you demand that you practice requires that you take each article
on DNA and the Book of Mormon that I have posted -- and rebutt it line-
by-line, concept-by-concept.
Where is your scientific rebuttal with footnoted references?
You cannot simply click your high heels and pretend to make the
articles on DNA just disappear because they were written by genetics
researchers who happen to be Mormon.
Now, do as you say: show where they lack scientific merit. I have
already handed you your arse when you made an attempt earlier today
(and it was a weak and feeble attempt).
Remember? THHUUUUUD!!!!
:)
<snipped off a number of hateful ad hominem attacks from the "Mr.
Scientist" - Duwayne "Queen of Stats" Anderson.
You see - his accusations don't even bear up to the informal scrutiny
this list provides.
-Red Davis
Red Davis
wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:52 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>> So, what about Dr. John M. Bulter? Do you think he is credible on
> > DNA? He is currently employed as a research chemist in the Biochemical
> > Science Division at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and
> > Technology, where he directs a project team developing new DNA
> > technologies for forensic and human identity applications.
>
> > Open your narrow mind, and read this:
>
> >http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf
>
> <snip>
>
> As with many arguments from LDS apologists, Butler's article is based
> on two things:
> 1) Distorting and misrepresenting LDS scriptures
> 2) Distorting and misrepresenting science
>
That is your claim, let's see if it holds water.
> This is the DAM (distort and misrepresent) argumentative style used so
> frequently by other notorious apologists for the Church of Jesus
> Christ of Latter-day Saints, such as Hugh Nibley.
No facts here, just subjective venom directed towards a religious
population. Hardly the actions of a supposed unbiased observer, a
supposed scientist, who is simply an honest seeker of truth.
>
> Let's look at a specific example. Butler claims that the Book of
> Mormon doesn't specifically say that all the Jaredites were
> destroyed.
You imply by this statement that the Book of Mormon does specifically
say that *all* the Jaredites were destroyed.
You also ask the we confuse those of Jaredite lineage, with those of
the Jaredite nation. That is, you ask that we *assume* that there was
never any co-mingling of "Jaredite descendants" with any other Book of
Mormon peoples.
So, what we must do to entertain your reasoning -- is find an explicit
statement in the Book of Mormon stating that all the Jaredites were
destroyed, and we must *assume* (my, oh my, that is so scientific, we
must *assume*) that Romeo never met Juliet ancient American style.
(I'm already laughing at your weak suppositions you are attempting to
pass off as "science").
Now, this is not an unimportant point that you are trying to make
here. For, if there is no explicit/specific statement in the Book of
Mormon that the Jaredites were destroyed along with a statement that
the Jaredites and Nephites never mixed -- your *ENTIRE* argument
against Dr. Butler falls apart. Your *ENTIRE* argument.
Given your ENTIRE argument falls apart, that means Dr. Butler's
article stands, and there is a reasonable scientific response showing
that DNA does not disprove the Book or Mormon.
Now, does the Book of Mormon explicitly state that every single
Jaredite was destroyed and no co-mingling ever occurred between
Jaredite desdendants other Book of Mormon peoples?
So, Duwayne, would you say that Elder Bruce R. McConkie (a member of
the Quorum of Twelve Apostles for many years, and the author of many,
many books, including "Mormon Doctrine") was a pretty good scholar of
the Book of Mormon?
What did Elder McConkie have to say in *1966* - long before any DNA
squabbling occurred? Wrote Elder McConkie, "The American Indians...as
Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their
veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may
have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of
their fellows perished. It is quite apparent that groups of orientals
found their way over the Bering Strait..." (Mormon Doctrine, P. 33)
> He does this so he can imply that the Book of Mormon is
> consistent with an Asian (in part) origin for the Native Americans.
He does this because this has been the view of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints for many, many, many years.
THUDDDDDDDD!!!
What was that? It was Duwayne's key argument falling to the ground.
Let's hear that again: THUDDDDDD!
You see, the Book of Mormon never states that *all* the Jaredites
(e.g., all the descendants those that migrated about 2200 B.C.) were
destroyed. In fact, it does describe how the Jaredites split up into
warring factions on several occassions (like the Kingdoms of Shule and
Cohor). The account of the Book of Ether centers on following the
main faction of "Jaredites" and describes signficant occassions where
the kingdom was factured and put back together again, and fractured
again. Various groups change from one faction to another, from one
kingdom to another, during the account in Ether.
Again, what is that sound, THUDDDD!
You see, DuWayne, that's what happens when the "science" you have been
hawking is based on "assumptions" and "suspicions" and make believe
that the Book of Mormon says things it just doesn't say.
> Butler argues that the Jaredites might have been from Asia, might have
> intermingled with the Nephites, overwhelming the DNA evidence of
> Hebrews, leaving us with the predominate markers pointing to Asia.
>
> There are problems with his argument all over the place.
> 1) DNA analysis used to track migrations also looks at the time of
> migration, and the Asians ancestors of the Native Americans came to
> the Western Hemisphere about 10,000 years before the fictional
> Jaredites. So the Jaredite explanation, even if it was consistent
> with the Book of Mormon, doesn't solve the conflict between the Book
> of Mormon and science.
How do we know they came "about 10,000 years before"? Where do we get
that date from? Well, if we are speaking "genetically", it would be
based upon "estimates", right? The same estimates that have
supposedly put the divergence of humans and apes at "6 million years
ago", and at "10 million years ago". Now, because theri math doesn't
agree, geneticists have said something akin to this:
"Humans were a distinct line 10 million years ago. But, part of the
distinct line started monkeying around -- literally. Then, 6 million
years ago they stopped monkeying around -- literally." Now, I have a
question: If a human and a monkey had sexual intercourse 7 million
years ago - would that offspring be fertile? What if a human and a
monkey had sexual intercourse today -- wout that offspring be
fertile? John Manning, are you fertile? :)
I mention this huge difference in the DNA "science" of when humans and
apes supposedly diverged to show that a lot that people call
"science", and what is "science", is based on "theory" and "estimates"
and "averages" and "envelopes" and "bounds". In other words -- it
isn't empirically derived, it may not even be heuristically derived,
it may not even be true tomorrow .
> 2) Butler's argument undermines other key apologetic arguments (this
> is a common problem - LDS apologists can't seem to keep their
> arguments straight). That is, if a small band of Jaredites could
> overwhelm the DNA evidence from a *huge* civilization of Nephites/
> Lamanites, then how can other Mormon apologists argue elsewhere that
> the Nephite/Lamanite DNA was all washed out by intermingling with pre-
> existing Native Americans?
Well, Duwayne, you are using the old straw man attack against LDS
beliefs. The Book of Mormon has never said that only the Jaredites
were in the Americas before the Nephites, or after the Nephites, or
even during the Nephites. Instead, it talks of several different
migrations. It is unfair, and dishonest, for you to attribute to the
Book of Mormon things the Book of Mormon does not teach.
Now, as to what "LDS apologists" say, or don't say, or what they agree
on, or don't agree on: what does that have to do with the price of tea
in China? Or, the validity of the Book of Mormon? LDS apologists are
as diverse as one would expect from a population of 13,000,000 people,
with each one having a different level of expertise, ability, and
perspective.
Is the only way you can attack the LDS Church is to take the *weakest*
argument submitted by Joe Apologist, defeat it, and then act as if you
have defeated *all* apologists, if not the entire intellectual and
spiritual capacity of some 13 million Mormoons?
Are you daft, arrogant, or just blinded by complete hatred for
Mormons?
>
> Apologists have become so desperate that they've tried to adopt the
> scattergun approach in which every possible explanation is tabled.
> The problem is these explanations are not all consistent, so one day
> the apologists are arguing that a small band of Nephites lost their
> DNA among the masses of indigenous Native Americans, and the next day
> they are suggesting that a small band of Jaredites overwhelmed the DNA
> markers of the masses of Nephites.
Diversity of views does not mean that all views are in error if one is
in error. Again, you assume too much, you know too little, you beat
your chest too much.
BTW, no one is arguing that Native Americans "lost their DNA" --
except you. Again, you build a straw man, pretend to defeat the straw
man, and then claim victory from your own self-delusion.
The one thing that is apparent in all that you post: you hate Mormons.
Why do you hate people you don't even know so much?
>
> It's a mess, an absolute mess of circular and inconsistent arguments
> that only a religious fanatic could love.
>
All the key words of an objective scientist, right Duwayne? I must
have missed your objective comment above. To the casual observer, it
looks like a rant.
> Let's revisit Butler's argument about the Jaredites. For folks
> unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites were a group of
> people that god supposedly brought to the Americas at the time of the
> tower of Babel. [As a side note, we see here a perfect example of the
> Biblical literalism that underlies much of Mormonism. Mormons believe
> in the literal universal flood, and are literal creationists, too.]
There you go again, building straw men. "Mormons believe in a literal
universal flood". "Mormons are literal creationists, too". This type
of arguing is known as "scattergun approach", where you take cheap
shots hoping something hits. Funny how *you* are the one who engages
in behavior you state is so awful.
Why do you hate Mormons so much to take such cheap shots?
You know very well that Mormons believe the earth was "organized" -
that is, made from material that already existed. It is a BIG LIE to
state that we are "literal creationists". You also know that we
believe the earth was created in "periods" (informally called "days")
that could have lasted thousands if not eons of years, and that these
periods are in an order that is evolutionary in process. You also
know that we believe that God follows all the natural laws of the
universe, and that His power comes from His superior knowledge and
command of those laws.
Why do you hate the Mormons so, that you make up these false claims?
>
> The Jaredites supposedly came to the Americas several thousand years
> BCE and established a huge civilization that used elephants and
> smelted iron/steel. [All the non-trivial descriptions of the Jaredite
> civilization are hopelessly inconsistent with archeology.] Toward the
> end of the Jaredite civilization a prophet comes to the king and says
> this:
>
> Ether 13:20-21 "And in the second year the word of the Lord came to
> Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he
> would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his
> kingdom and spare the people--Otherwise they should be destroyed, and
> all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see
> the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning
> another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and
> Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be
> destroyed save it were Coriantumr."
Please note that the destruction of "all his household" only refers to
Coriantumr's household. It does not say *all* the Jaredites would be
destroyed. It only says the Jaredites will be destroyed, much like
someone saying, "The Southern States were destroyed during the Civil
War". Such a statement doesn't mean all the inhabitants of the South
were killed or destroyed, only that the Confederacy was destroyed.
>
> Notice that the prophecy says god will save the people *and*
> Coriantumr's household *if* Coriantumr repented. Otherwise *only*
> Coriantumr would live to see another group of people come to the land.
Nope, that's not what it says. All of Coriantumr's household is
threated with destruction -- not "all the Jaredite people". Again,
Elder McConkie said as much over 40 years ago. Now, who has the power
to interpret the scriptures? Me? You? Or an apostle and prophet of
the Lord?
>
> Here's the link to the official LDS Internet site where you can read
> the whole thing in context:
>
> http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/13/20-21#20
>
> Well, Coriantumr doesn't repent. We fast forward to Ether 15:33 where
> the prophet goes to the scene of the final battle. Here's what the
> Book of Mormon says:
>
> Ether 15: 33 "And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go
> forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had
> all been fulfilled;"
>
> If the prophecy had been fulfilled, then *ONLY* Coriantumr was left.
Yes, only Coriantumr was left of his household.
> So Butler's desperation has reached the point of trying to defend the
> Book of Mormon by denying the fulfillment of prophecy and the truth of
> god's word that's supposedly in the Book of Mormon. It must have been
> a difficult pill to swallow, and one that Butler would not have gagged
> upon unless he understands the desperate situation for the Book of
> Mormon with regard to the DNA evidence showing it's a fraud.
Wow, what a bunch vitriol. And what about Elder McConkie? He died
long before the DNA debate even appeared.
Why do you lie so much? Why do you hate the Mormons so much?
If your position is valid, why must you make things up? Distort
history?
Misquote the scriptures? Why can't your position stand on its own
free, and fair weight?
Why? Because it is invalid, thus the smoke and mirrors Duwayne
applies.
-Red Davis
Red Davis
I think you are reading too much into an informal statement. Dr.
Russell and I are in complete agreement.
And, BTW, I know the subject of the research described in this article
like the back of my hand (hint-hint).
There is little difference between his statement, and mine, quoted as
follows:
"All engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are
engineers".
We engineers see ourselves as a special breed of scientist - in that
we can solve the most difficult problems. It is a fact that you can
hire an engineer into a slot designated as "scientist", but you can
*never* hire a scientist lacking an engineering degree into an
engineering slot. Engineers are special breeds of scientists: we
apply what we know, and we make things go. That is, engineers are
specialized scientists.
>
> I do so hate to burst your little ego bubble, but I am also intimately
> acquainted with the field of electrical engineering. I am even more
> unimpressed that you don't hold a graduate level degree, like me.
> Perhaps that is why your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese.
Oh, so now you have a "graduate" degree in Electrical Engineering?
Wow, you sure know how to make up big whoppers. Or, are you using
equivocation to make it appear you are an engineer? So, are you also a
PE?
What university did you receive your EE degree from? Your graduate
degree in engineering?
This should be good. Yep, calling you out on yet another lie.
>
> First, rankings are only valid for the particular year. Perhaps you
> are not familiar, but universities move up and down the rankings
> annually. Are you also aware of how rankings are determined? Many
> questions posed to universities can be likened to picking a homecoming
> queen, in other words, name recognition and popularity based on that
> recognition. Knowing this, many universities are not submitting
> information to the various groups organizing the information or only
> partially disclosing rendering the rankings invalid. It is no small
> wonder that BYU's rankings have dropped in recent years. You should
> be familiar with the academic witch-hunt at BYU.
You write much, say little. "Many universities are not submitting
information to the various groups...."
Really? "Many?" List some of these "many". I can't think of a single
university that doesn't want to be as high up on those lists as they
possibly can. Now, if the information they provide would lower them
on the list -- I can see the hesitancy in releasing it. Again, who
are these universities that are trying to hide their mediocrity? I'm
calling you out on yet another false statement.
Why do you anti-Mormons lie so much?
>
> Second, rankings also vary from one deriving the values to another.
> As you should well have noticed, from US World and News, USA Today,
> and graduateshotline many universities were not at the same spot
> clearly suggesting very different standards.
You write much, you say little. The point is: Texas A&M is a highly
respected, top-notch, engineering school, yes?
Wow. You diverge.
>
> Third, while you showed science and engineering rankings you did not
> show anything regarding the separate field of physics. While many
> classes do override, it is a separate field as you should be well
> aware.
Who cares about physics? We have said nothing about physics. This
whole discussion about engineering and scientists started with
DumbWayne stating that Mormons are not acquainted with the scientific
method, and then pointing that finger individually at me.
I simply showed that he is wrong, and if he wanted to compare
educations -- he will lose the battle.
> Clearly this shows that unlike those in engineering, physicists are
> researchers and qualify as scientist.http://physics.tamu.edu/dept/welcome.html
> This defines science and who qualifies as scientist:
> Therefore those fields of study which attempt to describe and
> understand the nature of the universe on a "whole" scale such as
> physics and chemistry would fit our definition but so would those
> fields which study it in "part" such as biology whose field has been
> limited to only those life forms on Earth.http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
> Here is an interesting title of a book.
> Physics for Scientists and Engineers *Note that the book is not
> titled Physics for Scientist Engineers or Engineering Scientist, but
> Scientists AND Engineer which strongly suggest two different fields of
> study.http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Chapters-CD-ROM/dp...
> To wrap it up nicely, engineers are not scientists on average, but
> build things. Physicists are scientists.
Blah-blah. It's like saying a book written for "Doctors and Heart
Surgeons", or "Lawyers and Trial Attorneys", or "Women and Feminists".
>
> Fourth, by insulting BYU's program you have rendered ALL BYU studies
> invalid. You have driven the point that BYU produces inferior
> students and inferior studies. Thank you for that. We now no longer
> have to see any of your ridiculous self-interested studies from BYU
> and FARM. Thank you again for doing so.
Wow, what a leap of logic. I insulted BYU's engineering school with
respect to Texas A&Ms. Using your logic, we must also discredit Penn
State, Princeton, etc. ehh?
Texas A&M does have a engineering program than BYU, or Princeton, or
Penn State. Simple fact.
>
> Fifth, please produce studies from Texas A & M that show non-Siberian
> land bridge Ancient Native American migration.
Texas A&M is not known for anthropology or archaeology.
However, I thought this class offering was funny:
"LIT 260: Introduction to African-American Literary and Cultural
Studies
Employing the methods of several disciplines, including literature,
history, philosophy, and anthropology, introduces the dramatic and
detailed documentation of the presence and legacy of Africans in
Ancient America (or Pre-Columbian America). Explores the major genres,
themes and criticisms that compose the literary and cultural
traditions of African-Americans. Selected oral narratives, essays,
slave narratives, poetry, short stories, autobiographies, drama, and
novels are critically studied. Attention is given to historical,
cultural, and socio-political backgrounds.
http://www.bentley.edu/diversity/academic-courses.cfm
On a serious note, Please show me ancient fossil records of camels
from anywhere in the Middle East that date to 1,000 to 4,000 years
ago. What? You can't? There aren't any? Well, obviously the camel
never existed in the Middle East until the greys brought them from
Mars during the Middle Ages.... :)
A "good 'ole boy" that plays the violin, listens to Mozart and
Beethoven, does interior decoration, writes books and articles on
engineering, ballroom dances, and is studying three languages
(Lithuanian, German, and French)?
Nope, not me.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > So, both of us should understand the scientific method,
>
> > > Many of your writings strongly suggest you do not understand the first
> > > thing about scientific method.
>
> > Really, let's see.
>
> > > Here is an elementary version that I thought would aid your
> > > understanding. You might pay particular heed to #4 and #5.http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_method
>
> > > If one uses the scientific method, one CHANGES one's knowledge based
> > > on findings when those findings are proven wrong time and time again.
>
> > Correct -- when they are "proven wrong". Now, that's the problem
> > isn't it? The proof.
> > As soon as you see something that "proves" my religion wrong, you will
> > post it, won't you?
>
> I have as well as have others. You have compartmentalized your
> religion to the point that you are unwilling and/or unable to see the
> fact pattern.
See, that's where you are wrong: I converted to the LDS Church through
a study of anti-Mormonism.
>
> > > You ignore the findings and gain no new knowledge instead tossing out
> > > new facts and not reworking the hypothesis. You also sadly narrow
> > > your sources which I consider outliers and motivated to find very
> > > specific conclusions...just like the pharmaceutical companies
> > > mentioned in another thread.
>
> > I "narrow my sources"? That's an incredibly ignorant statement.
>
> You ONLY have presented me BYU/FARMS studies, which clearly based on
> your above statements of inferiority, I should reject.
Specious at best, immature at worst. The "DNA proves the BoM"
argument came from ex-Mormons. The "DNA doesn't disprove the BoM"
came from Mormons. The "Scientific community" has stayed out of it.
There's no money in it (e.g., no one is going to get a grant to do a
study from the government).
>
> > I
> > read about 2-3 major writings a week that are against the LDS Church.
>
> What an incredible waste of time. I now actually pity you.> Now, please note I say they are "against the LDS Church." A look at
> > each argument, analyze it, and determine the merit. That is why I am
> > the one who has discredited Dick Baer and D. Michael Quinn.
>
> > > us are experts in DNA, though I have seen Duwayne pretend he is.
>
> > > I have watched your repeated claims to be a scientist while completely
> > > ignoring scientific method.
>
> > Really, where?
>
> Do I call you on the phone? No. Do I email you? No. Do I associate
> with you in any place other than here on ARM? No. Then by golly it
> must be here.
So, where?
-Red Davis
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > If the BoM and what it says is true and if Joseph Smith is a Prophet of
> > > > > God and the LDS Church is the only true church on earth today, than
> > > > > than it will withstand all scrutiny, true?
>
> > > > That is correct. It will, and has, understood all scrutiny.
>
> > > It has also FAILED repeatedly under that understood scrutiny, yet you
> > > refuse to revise your hypothesis. At best that makes you a failed
> > > scientist.
>
> > OK, let's play this game. Your claim seems to be mountains of
> > evidence out there that scientifically proves the LDS Church and/or
> > the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith are false.
>
> > All I ask of you is this: take your very best shot, your very best
> > evidence, your very best scientific "proof" and post it right here. I
> > will take it and respond to it point-by-point, line-by-line, page-by-
> > page. Now, just post one, I have a life, you know -- and I certainly
> > have better things to do than show what a willy-nilly you are. But
> > make it the best proof ever that Mormonism is false, and I will
> > respond to it.
>
> As I have said time and time again, only ONE false prophecy excludes
> Joseph Smith. I have already responded to this question with no
> response from you. There is no sense in repeating the same.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now, this is what is at stake: After I
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Red Davis
wrote:
Prove that oil is a fossil fuel.
-Red Davis
RetroProphet
>> [remember that your argument isn't with me, it's with the scientists.]
>
>There you go again. Only people who have no understanding of the
>scientific community claim that "the scientific community" supports
>their position and no other.
>
>While articles critical of the Book of Mormon have been written by
>individual members of the scientific community and have said Subject A
>indicates the Book of Mormon isn't true -- others members of the
>scientific community have written articles disagreeing with such an
>assertion.
You know of peer-reviewed work by non-Mormon archaeologists
that draw the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is
historically accurate?
RetroProphet
Red Davis says...
>
>How many times is steel mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
>Answer: five times according to my Topical Guide, the last
>being 400 B.C.
>
>The first two reference weapons of war Nephi brought from the MIddle
>East, Laban's Sword, and his bow of steel. One is during the Jaredite
>period, leaving twice when simple lists of materials are given.
>
>Now, question: besides Laban's sword and Nephi's bow -- what items
>does the Book of Mormon describe as being made out of steel by the
>Nephites?
>Answer: not one thing.
>
2 Nephi 5:14 "And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban,
and after the manner of it did make many swords."
Doesn't sound like "not one thing" to me.
>So, we don't have any items being specifically mentioned
>as being made out of steel by the Nephites,
Uh huh, except there's those many swords.
2 Nephi 5:14 "And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban,
and after the manner of it did make many swords."
You're not too swift are you?
Then there's...
2 Nephi 5:15 "And I did teach my people to build buildings,
and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper,
and of brass, and of steel..."
Was Nephi teaching a theoretical class in working in steel?
None of them made anything out of steel?
>we don't even have the word "steel" being mentioned after
>400 B.C. (The Book of Mormon covers 600 B.C. to about 420 A.D)
Current theory holds that this was to save precious space
on the plates -- as the reader has already been told that
the Nephites were making their swords out of steel, it would
be an enormous waste to keep saying they were made out of
steel the subsequent thousand times that swords are mentioned.
This fits well with the theory that the Nephites did not change
the material they made their swords from.
>What happened to all the steel and "smelting" you were
>falsely attributing to the Book of Mormon?
What happened to your claim?: "What items does the
Book of Mormon describe as being made out of steel
by the Nephites? Answer: not one thing."
Why, it's a false claim. How'd dat happen?
>Why do you lie so much? Why do you hate the Mormons so much?
I think it's quite clear who is lying.
And for the record, I hate Morons, not Mormons.
紐. L. Measures
<bcfa7f6b-55e4-4058...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com>, Red
Davis <there...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:30=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 6:52=A0pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 24, 8:55=A0am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 23, 8:06=A0pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > How have you addressed the science of DNA? =A0You are not a scient=
> ist,
> > > > > > so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
> >
> > > > > Actually, I am a scientist. =A0
> >
> > > > Please list your peer-review papers dealing with DNA:
> >
> > > Oh, so now that you know I can meet the "scientific bar", you are not
> > > attempting to move it higher by demanding "peer reviewed."
> >
> > Nobody's surprised that you can't do it.
> >
> > > What's a matter, chicken? =A0
> >
> > Typical apologetic argument.
> >
> > > You said there was no scientific support or
> > > evidence that explains any differences in DNA comparisons with the
> > > Book of Mormon. =A0None. =A0That was your claim, wasn't it?
> >
> > That's right. =A0And if you want to assert that something is "scientific
> > evidence" you need to show it's good enough to get from a scientific
> > source.
>
> Let's get you on the record: It is your position that scientific
> evidence proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, the following:
>
>
> A) The native populations of the Americas (e.g., those that have not
> migrated since, say, 1500) are exclusively descendants of "Asians"
> B) There exists, genetically speaking, a DNA marker that defines all
> "Asians" and that those who have the marker cannot have ancestors from
> any other population.
> D) There exists, genetically speaking, a DNA marker that defines all
> "Jews" and that those who do not have the marker *cannot* have any
> Jewish ancestors.
> D) Populations identified today as "Asian" and "Jewish" are from the
> same exclusive set of ancestors as those that would have been defined
> as "Asian" or "Jewish" some 2,500 years ago (in other words, no
> external populations have joined these groups since that time -- only
> constant inbreeding among a stagnant population).
> E) Thus, the scientific community as a whole, without any dissenting
> voices and completey united in 100% agreement, have concluded that,
> based on this DNA/genetic evidence, the Book of Mormon is a fraud.
>
> Is this correct? You have "scientific proof" that supports all that?
> Wow, or are you drinking that firewater again?
>
> -Red Davis
** Sobering up is sure to happen for those who get drunk on whisky.
Those who get drunk on organized religion typically can't, so I see the
latter as more risky.
紐. L. Measures
<a01a87a2-52a3-4241...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:15 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Let's get you on the record: It is your position that scientific
> > evidence proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, the following:
> >
> > A) The native populations of the Americas (e.g., those that have not
> > migrated since, say, 1500) are exclusively descendants of "Asians"
>
> No scientist I know would use the word "exclusively." And "exclusive"
> isn't what's needed to prove the Book of Mormon false.
>
> The scientific consensus is more along the lines of "predominantly."
>
> > B) There exists, genetically speaking, a DNA marker that defines all
> > "Asians" and that those who have the marker cannot have ancestors from
> > any other population.
>
> You really don't know how scientists use DNA to trace migrations, do
> you?
>
** He's an LdS apologist, Duwayne.
Jong Kim
> Red Davis wrote:
> > (Nancy) wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
> >
> > Nancy,
> > Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> > on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
> >
> > Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
>
> Neither, apparently, do facts.
You, a proud author of an anti-Mormon, anti-truth book, and Nancy are both
fools.
5 They encourage themselves [in] an evil matter: they commune of laying
snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?
6 They search out iniquities; they accomplish a diligent search: both the
inward [thought] of every one [of them], and the heart, [is] deep.
7 But God shall shoot at them [with] an arrow; suddenly shall they be
wounded.
(Old Testament | Psalms 64:5 - 7)
> > A dialogue works like this: you say something, I address your points
>
> How have you addressed the science of DNA? You are not a scientist,
> so you can't argue the facts with scientific experts.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and
land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more
the child of hell than yourselves.
(New Testament | Matthew 23:15)
The Mormon Church is doing the same now, btw.
1 AND now, O ye priests, this commandment [is] for you.
2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay [it] to heart, to give glory
unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you,
and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye
do not lay [it] to heart.
3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, [even]
the dung of your solemn feasts; and [one] shall take you away with it.
4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my
covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him [for]
the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.
6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips:
he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.
7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law
at his mouth: for he [is] the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the
law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the
people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the
law.
10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal
treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of
our fathers?
11 ś Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in
Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD
which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the
scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering
unto the LORD of hosts.
(Old Testament | Malachi 2:1 - 12)
Indeed I have a witness from the Holy Ghost, regarding the above Malachi
passage.
> > and offer an alternative explanation and make my points.
>
> Hogwash! A good "alternative explanation" to the Mormon story is that
> the Book of Mormon is a fraud.
, saith Duchesne Ranterson.
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me,
saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be
cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from
his presence.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore
cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their
hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as
they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not
be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to
come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome
unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 5:20 - 22)
> It's a very nice explanation, too, as
> it's fully consistent with all the evidence.
35 And they also of the tribe of Judah, after their pain, shall be
sanctified in holiness before the Lord, to dwell in his presence day and
night, forever and ever.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 133:35)
1 HEARKEN, O ye Gentiles, and hear the words of Jesus Christ, the Son of the
living God, which he hath commanded me that I should speak concerning you,
for, behold he commandeth me that I should write, saying:
2 Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil
doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your
secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your
priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your
wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name,
that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy
Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of
Israel.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 30:1 - 2)
> > You next
> > respond with an alternative explanation to my points, and we go again
> > in an interative process.
>
> What verifiable, non-trivial evidence do you have that the Book of
> Mormon is not a fraud?
Your Evolutionary, Relativistic world, even Babylon the great (the Lord's
sarcasm), is a fraud.
I have a photograph about 100 years old showing two very dark Indian parents
with their daughters who are also dark, but the same also shows their two
sons
who are absolutely European white. I mean, besides all those ruins in
Central
America and South America, as well as those well known more than a century
ago to the Pilgrims and subsequent European-descended pioneers in North
America.
I have been very much interested of late with regard to the studies and
researches of the geologists who have been investigating the geological
character of the Rocky Mountain country. Professor Marsh, of Yale College,
with a class of his students, has spent, I think, four summers in succession
in the practical study of geology in these mountain regions. What is the
result of his researches? There is one result, so far, that particularly
pleases me. There are some here who know a man by the name of John Hyde,
from London, formerly a member of this Church, who apostatized and went
back; and his great argument against the Book of Mormon was, that it stated
that the old Jaredites and, perhaps, the Nephites, who formerly lived on
this continent, had horses, while it is well known that horses were unknown
to the aboriginal inhabitants of America when it was discovered by Columbus,
and that there were no horses here until they were imported from Europe.
Now, since Professor Marsh and his class began their investigations, they
have found among the fossil remains of the extinct animals of America no
less than fourteen different kinds of horses, varying in height from three
to nine feet. These discoveries made Professor Marsh's students feel almost
as though they could eat up these mountains, and their enthusiasm for
studying the geology of the regions around Bridger's Fort was raised to the
highest pitch. In their researches among these mountains they have formed
the opinion that there was once a large inland sea here, and they think they
have discovered the outlet where the water broke forth and formed Green
River. Here in these valleys and in these ranges of mountains we can follow
the ancient water line. This discovery of Professor Marsh is particularly
pleasing to us "Mormons," because he has so far scientifically demonstrated
the Book of Mormon to be true.
~~Journal of Discourses, Vol.17, Pg.46, Brigham Young, April 18, 1874
Plus all those mammoth bones found by others (professionals and amateurs
alike), etc., etc.
19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and
cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially
the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
(Book of Mormon | Ether 9:19)
I have shown you, by instancing small circumstances of common occurrence,
that people are apt to deny to day what they knew yesterday; and you know
that you have disputed others with regard to these little things which have
transpired, after the circumstances connected therewith had escaped your
memory. It is just so with regard to your religion. And when you come to
the almighty philosophers, those who think they know so much, they are in
the same dilemma; their optic nerves and their glasses may all deceive them.
Unless a person is taught by the principle of eternity, and is insured by
those principles that dwell with the Gods, he may be in doubt, because it is
a doubtful case. All is doubtful, except what comes from the Almighty in
His revelations to His people.
~~Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, Pg.203, Brigham Young, February 1, 1857
--
Jong Kim, Apostle of the One Mighty and Strong
> > Again, ignoring the facts we post in response
>
> What "facts" have you posted that invalidate the scientific community
> [remember that your argument isn't with me, it's with the scientists.]
>
> > and simply reposting the
> > same old same old doesn't work with us.
>
> Clearly. But the posts are not for religious fanatics who're unable
> to change their minds. The posts are for the other readers on ARM.
>
> > We will ignore you
>
> Clearly.
>
> > and move
> > onto someone who wants to have an honest discussion as described
> > above.
>
> "Honest discussion" in Mormon speak means someone won't disagree with
> their naked assertions.
>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> Author of 'Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
Gerald Bostock
wrote:
> In article <920e882e-13b1-4e90-ad98-3ce110ded...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
In the movie "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" Clint Eastwood said
something like "God's not on our side because he hates idiots."
RetroProphet
>>
>> What verifiable, non-trivial evidence do you have that the Book of
>> Mormon is not a fraud?
>
>Your Evolutionary, Relativistic world, even Babylon the great (the Lord's
>sarcasm), is a fraud.
>
>I have a photograph about 100 years old showing two very
>dark Indian parents with their daughters who are also dark,
>but the same also shows their two sons who are absolutely
>European white.
You never heard of albinism? What is your point?
>I mean, besides all those ruins in Central America and
>South America, as well as those well known more than a century
>ago to the Pilgrims and subsequent European-descended pioneers
>in North America.
None of these have the slightest thing to suggest
a connection with Judaism. How can that be?
You've got ruins all over the place and not a
single Jewish-related artifact WITHIN them.
How do you explain that, if they were built
by a populous and widespread civilization
built by the descendants of Jews?
How do you know that Marsh's horse fossils
are not from the "previous creation" your
cult speaks of?
And, if horses existed in the New World during
"Book of Mormon" times, why are they not depicted
in pictorial art artifacts? -- if Mesoamerican ruins
are those of BoM peoples, why do they not depict horses?
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > The Book of Mormon says the following things about great ancient
> > American cultures. It's wrong in every case (if you think it's right,
> > then name the great ancient American cultures that had these things,
> > and back them up with verifiable objective evidence from the
> > scientific literature):
>
> > 1) Horses
>
> So, are you saying there were no horses in Ancient America, only after
> Europeans came over?
I thought you said you were a scientist. Well, you must not be a very
good one. Every scientist I know knows that horses evolved in the
Western Hemisphere.
They also went extinct in this hemisphere thousands of years before
the Book of Mormon describes the ancient Americans using them as
domesticated animals, along with other animals like giant sloths and
saber toothed cats.
By the way, did you know that people never co-existed with dinosaurs?
Yep, the Flintstones are just as wrong about ancient life as the Book
of Mormon.
This is one of the very clear proofs that the Book of Mormon is false;
it pretends to be a record of ancient America, but in every non-
trivial description of ancient America it is wrong. That's why I call
it not just a fraud, but a clumsy fraud.
> > 2) Iron/steel smelting
>
> There you go again, falsely making up things and putting them into the
> Book of Mormon.
>
> Why do you lie so much? Why do you hate Mormons so much?
>
> Where does the Book of Mormon describe the Nephites as "smelting" iron
> or steel? Answer: No where.
Ether 7: 9; "Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten
out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had
drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he
returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor,
by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father
Kib."
What part of "molten" don't you understand? What part of "steel"
don't you understand?
If the Book of Mormon is true, why do apologists for the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) lie about what it
says?
<snip>
> > 4) Used Hebrew & Egyptian
>
> "Used Hebrew"? Why do you hate the Mormons so much?
Mormon 9: 32-33: And now, behold, we have written this record
according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among
us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us,
according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been
sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew
hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew,
behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record."
<snip>
> > 5) Came to the Americas from points in/near the Middle East a few
> > thousand years ago
>
> Yep, sure did.
According to the Book of Mormon they did, but according to science,
"The genetic evidence is quite clear: all ancient migrants to the
Americas ... travelled via Siberia." ["The Journey of Man", Spencer
Wells, page 144]
And they arrived via Siberia thousands of years before the fictional
characters in Smith's Book of Mormon.
This is one of the reasons I characterize the Book of Mormon as a
clumsy fraud.
> > 6) Planted and harvested Old World plants
>
> Did they?
1 Nephi 18:6-24: "And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had
prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and
honey in abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord
had commanded us, we did go down into the ship, with all our loading
and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us, every one
according to his age; wherefore, we did all go down into the ship,
with our wives and our children. [Traveled tot he Promised Land and
got off the ship] And it came to pass that we did begin to till the
earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into
the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it
came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were
blessed in abundance."
If the Book of Mormon is true, why do apologists for the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) lie about what it
says?
<snip>
> > Actually, statistical analysis of month dates shows it's a clumsy
> > fraud. See the following link:
>
> >http://mormonism-proandcon.org/id9.html
>
> What a laugh!!! You call that science?
No, I call that mathematics.
> Seriously? You're pulling my
> leg? Stop it! My side hurts!!!
>
> That is your proof the Book of Mormon is false? Absurd misapplication
> of statistics to the Book of Alma?
>
> Well, you also just proved that the Book of Leviticus is a FAKE!!! HA-
> HA-HA-HA-HE-HE-HE!
Okay, so you've shown you can't deal with it. There's no surprise
there. The mathematics is bullet proof.
<snip additional laughing at himself>
> > >such as the fact that Joseph Smith, Jr.,
> > > translated the Book of Mormon., yet he never used the term "Jr." to
> > > describe fathers and sons that share the same name
>
> > You must be joking.
>
> Nope. Why didn't Joseph Smith describe all the sons who had their
> Father's name as "junior"? He was, after all, Joseph Smith, Jr.
No, really. You must be joking, right? Is that the best evidence you
can dig up for the Book of Mormon? The he called the guy Alma the
younger, instead of Alma Jr.?
<snip>
> > Smith's other writings are full of Chiasmus -- proving he wrote the
> > Book of Mormon. See the following link:
>
> >http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/davow.html
>
> Did you even read this link?
Yes. Did you? How can chiasmus be an indication of ancient origin
for the Book of Mormon when Smith wrote all over the place, including
in personal letters, in that style?
Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.
Chiasmus in other Smith writings.
Smith = likely author of Book of Mormon
Surely a bright engineer can understand that simple line of reasoning
<snip more "why to you hate Mormons" stuff>
> > > Here are some well researched articles that disagree with your
> > > statement that "all the evidence....":
>
> > Folks, all the articles Red posted are propaganda, often directly
> > funded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by
> > organizations that self profess a determination to show that the
> > Mormon Church is true.
>
> There you go again: killing the messenger.
It's important to remind people that the "messenger' in this case is
an article produced for (and distributed by) an apologetic arm of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- not an article in the
scientific literature.
> The scientific process
> that you demand that you practice requires that you take each article
> on DNA and the Book of Mormon that I have posted -- and rebutt it line-
> by-line, concept-by-concept.
Actually, the scientific process requires you to prove your point. If
you say the Book of Mormon is true, it's your job to prove it. You
have the burden, not me. Same goes for green slobbering monsters
under the bed. If you think they exist, you have to prove it. It's
not my job to prove they are not there.
In the case of Butler, the rebuttal is easy since Butler didn't cite a
single bit of scientific research supporting his assertion that a huge
ancient American civilization came from the Middle East circa 2600
years ago. Since he produced no argument, the rebuttal is done.
As for evidence of an Asian origin, here are a few references from the
scientific literature:
<snip to end>
et...@rock.com
> On Jan 24, 8:55 am, Ramona <atlram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 11:20 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 8:37 pm, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
>
> > > > Red
> > > > Of course I'm not a Scientist! But isn't it okay for people to quote
> > > > the findings of those who are?
>
> > > You are mixing me up for something Duwayne Anderson posted. The way
> > > these threadsd are listed in Google make it problematic to keep which
> > > poster is posting straight, so its not unusual to mix up who said
> > > what.
>
> > > Duwayne said, rather ignorantly, that I (Red Davis) am not a
> > > scientist. I do not believe someone has to be a scientist to
> > > understand the matter at hand. However, I am a scientist and
> > > researcher.
>
> > > BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (TexasA&M -
> > > ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> > > top 50 nationally).
>
> > By definition that would make Duwayne a scientist (physicist) and you
> > an engineer.
>
> Nope. All engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are
> engineers. A general engineer can do the work of a scientist, however
> a general scientist can never do the work of an engineer -- they
> simply do not have the practical background and expertise.
>
> > It seems Princeton is #1 and Texas A & M is #62, while BYU is not far
> > behind at #79. Georgia Tech is tied at #35, go yellow jackets.
>
> Those are University rankings - not rankings of the science and
> engineering schools. Such are ranked by their graduate programs --
> not undergraduate:
>
> Here are the rankings of science and engineering programs:
>
> http://www.graduateshotline.com/ranks/
>
> As you can see in this ranking, Texas A&M is 14th, Princeton 15th, BYU
> is not ranked. BTW, Harvard, Penn State, and Northwestern are also
> ranked behind Texas A&M.
>
> http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/ran...
>
> Again, Texas A&M is 14th, with Princeton being 18th, Georgia Tech,
> 4th, and, of course, MIT first.
>
> Geogia Tech is an excellent school. I have been there many times, and
> I always get a Varsity dog.
>
>
>
> > rankings appears. Will you next desire to compare penis size and
> > conclude the better lover based on that? Yes it's a bit strawman, but
> > I would wager you are woefully insufficient and are attempting to
> > bolster your ego this way. You probably also own a large truck and
> > large dog.
>
> Nope, it was a button I like to push with Duwayne. Next thing you
> know, he's going to tell us how he has patents for fibers, etc.....He
> has this big "push my button" sign on all of his posts.
>
> I don't own a truck or a dog. I have owned more Volvo's in my life
> than any other car.
>
>
>
>
> > Many of your writings strongly suggest you do not understand the first
> > thing about scientific method.
>
> Really, let's see.
>
> > Here is an elementary version that I thought would aid your
> > understanding. You might pay particular heed to #4 and #5.http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_method
>
> > If one uses the scientific method, one CHANGES one's knowledge based
> > on findings when those findings are proven wrong time and time again.
>
> Correct -- when they are "proven wrong". Now, that's the problem
> isn't it? The proof.
> As soon as you see something that "proves" my religion wrong, you will
> post it, won't you?
>
> > new facts and not reworking the hypothesis. You also sadly narrow
> > your sources which I consider outliers and motivated to find very
> > specific conclusions...just like the pharmaceutical companies
> > mentioned in another thread.
>
> read about 2-3 major writings a week that are against the LDS Church.
> each argument, analyze it, and determine the merit. That is why I am
> the one who has discredited Dick Baer and D. Michael Quinn.
>
> > us are experts in DNA, though I have seen Duwayne pretend he is.
>
> > I have watched your repeated claims to be a scientist while completely
> > ignoring scientific method.
>
> Really, where?
>
>
>
> > > > God and the LDS Church is the only true church on earth today, than
> > > > than it will withstand all scrutiny, true?
>
> > > That is correct. It will, and has, understood all scrutiny.
>
> > It has also FAILED repeatedly under that understood scrutiny, yet you
> > refuse to revise your hypothesis. At best that makes you a failed
> > scientist.
>
> OK, let's play this game. Your claim seems to be mountains of
> evidence out there that scientifically proves the LDS Church and/or
> the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith are false.
>
> All I ask of you is this: take your very best shot, your very best
> evidence, your very best scientific "proof" and post it right here. I
> will take it and respond to it point-by-point, line-by-line, page-by-
> page. Now, just post one, I have a life, you know -- and I certainly
> have better things to do than show what a willy-nilly you are. But
> make it the best proof ever that Mormonism is false, and I will
> respond to it.
>
> best case that supposedly "proves" that Mormonism is false -- you must
> admit publicly admit that the best case that Mormonism is false was
> disproven.
>
> Game? I am. This is similar to the same thing I did to Dick Baer --
> and he ran.
>
> So, here is the white space to post THE BEST CASE THAT MORMONISM IS
> FALSE:
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
>
> -Red Davis
This is a futile discussion... Something that Duwaynea Anderson is
incapable of comprehending.
You both are seeking after a sign (read as scientific proof)
NO SIGN WILL BE GIVEN.
How can the Mormon Lay people be lemmings is you go sticking signs all
around.
They might break heard and actually think split up make new tracks.
Although they are meant to do that... Not based on the false religion
of science.
Science the ever haughty wants to take credit for gods role in
breaking the herd.
They (the lemmings) are meant to break heard because they look to god
for an answer for once... Instead of the Hiney of the lemming ahead of
them.
Etchelle
Duwaynea Anderson
Red Davis wrote:
<snip>
> > Let's look at a specific example. �Butler claims that the Book of
> > Mormon doesn't specifically say that all the Jaredites were
> > destroyed. �
>
> You imply by this statement that the Book of Mormon does specifically
> say that *all* the Jaredites were destroyed.
Wrong. I don't imply anything. The Book of Mormon says, flat out,
that all but one of the Jaredites were destroyed. Here are the
verses:
Ether 13:20-21:" And in the second year the word of the Lord came to
Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he
would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his
kingdom and spare the people -- Otherwise they should be destroyed,
and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to
see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning
another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and
Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be
destroyed save it were Coriantumr.
Ether 15:33 "And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go
forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had
all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth
part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people
of Limhi did find them."
What part of "he only should live" do you find confusing?
Why would Butler -- and you -- need to lie about what the Book of
Mormon says, if the book is really true?
And how do Jaredites solve the problems with science, anyway?
<snip>
> > He does this so he can imply that the Book of Mormon is
> > consistent with an Asian (in part) origin for the Native Americans.
>
> He does this because this has been the view of the Church of Jesus
> Christ of Latter-day Saints for many, many, many years.
Then quote an LDS leaders prior to 1980 who said it.
> THUDDDDDDDD!!!
This seems to be Red's new method of expressing frustration.
<snip more THUDDDDDD!!>
> You see, the Book of Mormon never states that *all* the Jaredites
> (e.g., all the descendants those that migrated about 2200 B.C.) were
> destroyed.
Since I've posted the verses it's clear to all that you are lying
about what the Book of Mormon says. Why would you need to do that, if
the Book of Mormon is true?
<snip>
> > Butler argues that the Jaredites might have been from Asia, might have
> > intermingled with the Nephites, overwhelming the DNA evidence of
> > Hebrews, leaving us with the predominate markers pointing to Asia.
> >
> > There are problems with his argument all over the place.
> > 1) � � �DNA analysis used to track migrations also looks at the time of
> > migration, and the Asians ancestors of the Native Americans came to
> > the Western Hemisphere about 10,000 years before the fictional
> > Jaredites. �So the Jaredite explanation, even if it was consistent
> > with the Book of Mormon, doesn't solve the conflict between the Book
> > of Mormon and science.
>
> How do we know they came "about 10,000 years before"?
I thought you said you were a scientist. And you ask a silly question
like that? Don't you understand how DNA dating works? Don't you know
how radiocarbon dating works?
<snip>
> > 2) � � �Butler's argument undermines other key apologetic arguments (this
> > is a common problem - LDS apologists can't seem to keep their
> > arguments straight). That is, if a small band of Jaredites could
> > overwhelm the DNA evidence from a *huge* civilization of Nephites/
> > Lamanites, then how can other Mormon apologists argue elsewhere that
> > the Nephite/Lamanite DNA was all washed out by intermingling with pre-
> > existing Native Americans?
>
> Well, Duwayne, you are using the old straw man attack against LDS
> beliefs. The Book of Mormon has never said that only the Jaredites
> were in the Americas before the Nephites,
According to the Book of Mormon the Jaredites came from the mythical
tower of Babel. Here's what the BOM author Mormon says:
"An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of
the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord
confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower
to get to heaven"
The Nephites came out of Jerusalem around 600 BCE.
Again, I ask, if the Book of Mormon is true, why do apologists for the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lie about what it says?
<snip>
> > Apologists have become so desperate that they've tried to adopt the
> > scattergun approach in which every possible explanation is tabled.
> > The problem is these explanations are not all consistent, so one day
> > the apologists are arguing that a small band of Nephites lost their
> > DNA among the masses of indigenous Native Americans, and the next day
> > they are suggesting that a small band of Jaredites overwhelmed the DNA
> > markers of the masses of Nephites.
>
> Diversity of views does not mean that all views are in error if one is
> in error.
The arguments are so desperate they disagree with each other.
<snip>
> > Let's revisit Butler's argument about the Jaredites. �For folks
> > unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites were a group of
> > people that god supposedly brought to the Americas at the time of the
> > tower of Babel. �[As a side note, we see here a perfect example of the
> > Biblical literalism that underlies much of Mormonism. �Mormons believe
> > in the literal universal flood, and are literal creationists, too.]
>
> There you go again, building straw men. "Mormons believe in a literal
> universal flood".
Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah
and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in
their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. There is a
third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the
Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. ["The Flood and the
Tower of Babel, Donald W. Parry, Gospel Library > Magazines > Ensign >
January 1998]
> "Mormons are literal creationists, too".
Half the Book of Abraham repeats the LDS creation account. The D&C
says the earth is 6,000 years old. Why would you deny what your
church teaches, if your church is really true?
<snip>
> > The Jaredites supposedly came to the Americas several thousand years
> > BCE and established a huge civilization that used elephants and
> > smelted iron/steel. �[All the non-trivial descriptions of the Jaredite
> > civilization are hopelessly inconsistent with archeology.] �Toward the
> > end of the Jaredite civilization a prophet comes to the king and says
> > this:
> >
> > Ether 13:20-21 "And in the second year the word of the Lord came to
> > Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he
> > would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his
> > kingdom and spare the people--Otherwise they should be destroyed, and
> > all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see
> > the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning
> > another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and
> > Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be
> > destroyed save it were Coriantumr."
>
> Please note that the destruction of "all his household" only refers to
> Coriantumr's household.
It doesn't just say "housold" it says the people and his housold.
Let's quote the verses for you again:
ther 13:20-21:" And in the second year the word of the Lord came to
Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he
would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his
kingdom and spare the people -- Otherwise they should be destroyed,
and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to
see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning
another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and
Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be
destroyed save it were Coriantumr.
Ether 15:33 "And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go
forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had
all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth
part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people
of Limhi did find them."
What part of "he only should live" do you find confusing?
> It does not say *all* the Jaredites would be
> destroyed.
What's really sad about LDS apologetics is that apologists feel so
desperate they're willing to lie about an issue that, even if it was
true, wouldn't solve the conflict between Mormonism and science.
<snip>
> > Notice that the prophecy says god will save the people *and*
> > Coriantumr's household *if* Coriantumr repented. �Otherwise *only*
> > Coriantumr would live to see another group of people come to the land.
>
> Nope, that's not what it says.
That's exactly what it says. Read it one more time:
ther 13:20-21:" And in the second year the word of the Lord came to
Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he
would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his
kingdom and spare the people -- Otherwise they should be destroyed,
and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to
see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning
another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and
Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be
destroyed save it were Coriantumr.
Ether 15:33 "And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go
forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had
all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth
part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people
of Limhi did find them."
What part of "he only should live" do you find confusing?
So .... seriously, if the Book of Mormon is true, why do Mormon
apologists lie about what it says?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrian vehicle
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Prove that oil is a fossil fuel.
Science has done that, Red; you're arguing against science. Didn't
you claim to be a scientist? And you don't understand the evidence
that oil is a fossil fuel?
Well, I'd expect as much from a young-earth creationist.
Still waiting for you to prove the Jaredites ever existed.....
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" wrote...
> > Red Davis wrote:
> > > (Nancy) wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>
> > > Nancy,
> > > Did you read all the articles that I posted yesterday for you to read
> > > on DNA and the Book of Mormon?
>
> > > Reposting the same old same old doesn't work with us.
>
> > Neither, apparently, do facts.
>
> You, a proud author of an anti-Mormon, anti-truth book, and Nancy are both
> fools.
And that, folks, is the intellectual extent of Mormon apologetics.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
On Jan 28, 7:21 am, et...@rock.com wrote:
<snip>
> This is a futile discussion...
Red's unable to change his mind. So are you. But the discussion
isn't for you or Red, it's for people investigating the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
> Something that Duwaynea Anderson is
> incapable of comprehending.
Do you really not understand why I post here? I'm not trying to
convert religious fanatics, you know.
> You both are seeking after a sign (read as scientific proof)
This should tell investigators something ... Mormons view science as
"seeking after a sign." But how can any frame of thought be trusted
if it looks askew at verifiable and objective information and logical,
rational thought?
> NO SIGN WILL BE GIVEN.
Because Mormonism is false.
> How can the Mormon Lay people be lemmings is you go sticking signs all
> around.
> They might break heard and actually think split up make new tracks.
> Although they are meant to do that... Not based on the false religion
> of science.
This is what your brain will look like on Mormonism.
Etchelle
wrote:
The Imfamous <snip to end> Duwayne Anderson speaks.
Science becomes false religion when it is the ONLY religion one
believes in... Will that fit into your head.
Seeking after a sign is a religious thing.
So you are applying science as if it were a religion... Hence False
Religion.
Etchelle
Duwaynea Anderson
Science isn't a religion. Mormonism is a religion. One cannot
believe in both at the same time; it requires mental
compartmentalization because the two are at complete odds.
> Will that fit into your head.
> Seeking after a sign is a religious thing.
You seem to be having trouble keeping your arguments straight. I
thought you said it was bad to seek for signs.
Etchelle
A well expressed opinion, but just as unprovable as mine.
<snip to end>
Etchelle
> American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
And it has more greenhouses gas impact that a good 'ol jeep CJ5.
Methane is a far worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
The best all-terrain vehicle is a well trained non couch potato
ambitious human being.
Sorry to break the news to you.
Etchelle
Ramona
Except for the fact that his words are contrary to yours.
Snip irrelevant words.
> There is little difference between his statement, and mine, quoted as
> follows:
>
> "All engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are
> engineers".
>
Here is his quote: "I am an engineer, not a scientist."
Clearly this proves that not ALL engineers are scientists.
> We engineers see ourselves as a special breed of scientist - in that
> we can solve the most difficult problems. It is a fact that you can
> hire an engineer into a slot designated as "scientist", but you can
> *never* hire a scientist lacking an engineering degree into an
> engineering slot. Engineers are special breeds of scientists: we
> apply what we know, and we make things go. That is, engineers are
> specialized scientists.
>
>
>
> > I do so hate to burst your little ego bubble, but I am also intimately
> > acquainted with the field of electrical engineering. I am even more
> > unimpressed that you don't hold a graduate level degree, like me.
> > Perhaps that is why your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese.
>
> Oh, so now you have a "graduate" degree in Electrical Engineering?
> Wow, you sure know how to make up big whoppers. Or, are you using
> equivocation to make it appear you are an engineer? So, are you also a
> PE?
Yes Princess, I do have a Master's Degree. Worse yet for you, I am
female. Will it help you to recover if I am not a P.E.?
Thank you though for being so overtly sexist. It cements the
soundness of the decision we made many years ago for the sake of our
daughters.
>
> What university did you receive your EE degree from? Your graduate
> degree in engineering?
I gave you credit for literacy. Look back princess, and you will see
that I already responded to that question. It certainly seems that
you have this need for us to repeat our questions. I certainly hope
you don't have that same issue in your daily life, but the proof is in
the pudding.
>
> This should be good. Yep, calling you out on yet another lie.
>
>
>
> > First, rankings are only valid for the particular year. Perhaps you
> > are not familiar, but universities move up and down the rankings
> > annually. Are you also aware of how rankings are determined? Many
> > questions posed to universities can be likened to picking a homecoming
> > queen, in other words, name recognition and popularity based on that
> > recognition. Knowing this, many universities are not submitting
> > information to the various groups organizing the information or only
> > partially disclosing rendering the rankings invalid. It is no small
> > wonder that BYU's rankings have dropped in recent years. You should
> > be familiar with the academic witch-hunt at BYU.
>
> You write much, say little. "Many universities are not submitting
> information to the various groups...."
> Really? "Many?" List some of these "many".
U.S. World and News has stated as much themselves. Numerous
additional articles have been written on the topic of rankings as
well. Perhaps you need to put down some of your 2 - 3 mormon works
read per week for something relevant to today.
The point I am making is that the rankings do not necessarily test
what you assume they are testing. One is just as capable of receiving
a superior education from a poorly ranked university as one can
receive from a highly ranked university. Inferior motivation from a
student at a high ranked university will receive an inferior education
and a highly motivated student attending an "inferior" school will
receive a superior education. Ah, but you likely will pay no heed
instead relying on this years ranking.
>I can't think of a single
> university that doesn't want to be as high up on those lists as they
> possibly can.
Because you aren't aware of them, it must not be true.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/18/usnews
http://www.educationconservancy.org/presidents_letter.html
> Now, if the information they provide would lower them
> on the list -- I can see the hesitancy in releasing it. Again, who
> are these universities that are trying to hide their mediocrity? I'm
> calling you out on yet another false statement.
Princess, you may want to check out the disclaimer made by the U.S.
World and News itself.
>
> Why do you anti-Mormons lie so much?
"We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, the cunningest
and most adroit *thieves* , and any other shade of character that you
can mention."
~~ Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 077
>
>
>
> > Second, rankings also vary from one deriving the values to another.
> > As you should well have noticed, from US World and News, USA Today,
> > and graduateshotline many universities were not at the same spot
> > clearly suggesting very different standards.
>
> You write much, you say little. The point is: Texas A&M is a highly
> respected, top-notch, engineering school, yes?
It was you that expressed BYU's "inferior" program, specifically in
engineering, though DuWaynea by your words received his education in
another discipline.
>
> Wow. You diverge.
>
>
>
> > Third, while you showed science and engineering rankings you did not
> > show anything regarding the separate field ofphysics. While many
> > classes do override, it is a separate field as you should be well
> > aware.
>
> Who cares aboutphysics? We have said nothing aboutphysics. This
> whole discussion about engineering and scientists started with
> DumbWayne stating that Mormons are not acquainted with the scientific
> method, and then pointing that finger individually at me.
You are truly senile. Here is a copy of YOUR words:
> BTW, I have a Bacherlor's of Science in Engineering (Texas A&M -
> ranked 14th in the nation, ahead of Princeton), Duwayne has, I
> believe, a Bachelor's of Art in Physics (BYU -- not even ranked in the
> top 50 nationally).
>
> I simply showed that he is wrong, and if he wanted to compare
> educations -- he will lose the battle.
You showed a very narrow minded view of the definition of education.
Any reasonable person would ascertain as much. Rankings are based on
freshman retention, alumni donation rates, and so forth. Do you
actually believe those standards determine the knowledge gained by
students and the quality of education based on those standards?
Graduating from any of the higher ranking schools does not mean you
are of greater intelligence. It only means that perhaps that was your
local university and in so they accepted you. It also does not mean
that you have an i.q. superior to Duwaynea nor does it mean that you
utilized the library holding to their full potential.
> > Clearly this shows that unlike those in engineering, physicists are
> > researchers and qualify as scientist.http://physics.tamu.edu/dept/welcome.html
> > This defines science and who qualifies as scientist:
> > Therefore those fields of study which attempt to describe and
> > understand the nature of the universe on a "whole" scale such as
> >physicsand chemistry would fit our definition but so would those
> fields which study it in "part" such as biology whose field has been
> > limited to only those life forms on Earth.http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
> > Here is an interesting title of a book.
> >Physicsfor Scientists and Engineers *Note that the book is not
> > titledPhysicsfor Scientist Engineers or Engineering Scientist, but
> > Scientists AND Engineer which strongly suggest two different fields of
> > study.http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Chapters-CD-ROM/dp...
> > To wrap it up nicely, engineers are not scientists on average, but
> > build things. Physicists are scientists.
>
> Blah-blah. It's like saying a book written for "Doctors and Heart
> Surgeons", or "Lawyers and Trial Attorneys", or "Women and Feminists".
Check out Texas A & M's website. The Physics program is in the
Department of Science while the Engineering program is the Dwight Look
College of Engineering. Clearly they are two different disciplines
even if some of the coursework overlaps as does Veterinary Medicine
and Human Medicine. I would challenge you to visit a veterinarian to
have your prostate checked.
>
>
>
> > Fourth, by insulting BYU's program you have rendered ALL BYU studies
> > invalid. You have driven the point that BYU produces inferior
> > students and inferior studies. Thank you for that. We now no longer
> > have to see any of your ridiculous self-interested studies from BYU
> > and FARM. Thank you again for doing so.
>
> Wow, what a leap of logic. I insulted BYU's engineering school with
> respect to Texas A&Ms. Using your logic, we must also discredit Penn
> State, Princeton, etc. ehh?
Clearly you believe that Princeton produces inferior students.
Please explain this:
http://www.ece.tamu.edu/Undergrad/UndProspective.htm
http://web.princeton.edu/sites/career/data/surveys/CareerSurveyReport2006.html
How odd that despite Princeton's dreadful rankings, the average
student earned more than if they had attended Texas A & M.
product.
>
> Texas A&M does have a engineering program than BYU, or Princeton, or
> Penn State. Simple fact.
I didn't question that those universities have engineering programs.
That is also fact.
>
>
>
> > Fifth, please produce studies from Texas A & M that show non-Siberian
> > land bridge Ancient Native American migration.
>
> Texas A&M is not known for anthropology or archaeology.
Nor is BYU known for their anthropology and archaeology programs, yet
you quote them to the exclusion of all others.
>
> However, I thought this class offering was funny:
>
> "LIT 260: Introduction to African-American Literary and Cultural
> Studies
> Employing the methods of several disciplines, including literature,
> history, philosophy, and anthropology, introduces the dramatic and
> detailed documentation of the presence and legacy of Africans in
> Ancient America (or Pre-Columbian America). Explores the major genres,
> themes and criticisms that compose the literary and cultural
> traditions of African-Americans. Selected oral narratives, essays,
> slave narratives, poetry, short stories, autobiographies, drama, and
> novels are critically studied. Attention is given to historical,
> cultural, and socio-political backgrounds.
>
> http://www.bentley.edu/diversity/academic-courses.cfm
You do realize that timeframe includes to: Pre-Columbian 14,000 B.P. -
1492 CE and later?
>
snip change of subject
> > > > You also may want to take a peek here:http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rank...
> > > > It seems Princeton is #1 and Texas A & M is #62, while BYU is not far
> > > > behind at #79. Georgia Tech is tied at #35, go yellow jackets.
>
> > > Those are University rankings - not rankings of the science and
> > > engineering schools. Such are ranked by their graduate programs --
> > > not undergraduate:
>
> > > Here are the rankings of science and engineering programs:
>
> > >http://www.graduateshotline.com/ranks/
>
> > > As you can see in this ranking, Texas A&M is 14th, Princeton 15th, BYU
> > > is not ranked. BTW, Harvard, Penn State, and Northwestern are also
> > > ranked behind Texas A&M.
>
> > >http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/ran...
>
> > > Again, Texas A&M is 14th, with Princeton being 18th, Georgia Tech,
> > > 4th, and, of course, MIT first.
>
> > > Geogia Tech is an excellent school. I have been there many times, and
> > > I always get a Varsity dog.
>
> > GT is a great University. I am unsure why you put Princeton in the
> > group though. When I think engineering, I don't think Princeton.
>
> > You have a heartier gastronomic system than I. But then what passed
> > for food when I was younger, is no longer palatable.
>
> > > > I hope you realize how childish your attempt at legitimacy through
> > > > rankings appears. Will you next desire to compare penis size and
> > > > conclude
>
> ...
>
> read more »
I am now finished with this thread. The conversation is no longer
relevant to A.R.M. I apologize to everybody for dragging this on.
Ramona
RetroProphet
Red Davis says...
>
>OK, let's play this game. Your claim seems to be mountains of
>evidence out there that scientifically proves the LDS Church
>and/or the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith are false.
>
>All I ask of you is this: take your very best shot, your very best
>evidence, your very best scientific "proof" and post it right here.
>I will take it and respond to it point-by-point, line-by-line,
>-- and I certainly have better things to do than show what a
>willy-nilly you are. But make it the best proof ever that
>Mormonism is false, and I will respond to it.
>
>Now, this is what is at stake: After I respond and discredit
>your best case that supposedly "proves" that Mormonism is false
>-- you must admit publicly admit that the best case that
>Mormonism is false was disproven.
>
>Game? I am. This is similar to the same thing I did to Dick Baer
>-- and he ran.
>
>So, here is the white space to post THE BEST CASE THAT MORMONISM
>IS FALSE:
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>]
>
>-Red Davis
Taking as a basic assumption that Mormonism
cannot be true if the Book of Mormon is not
the authentic primary-source historical account
it claims to be -- something that former Mormon
leaders have said -- the best demonstration of
this would be that not one pre-Columbian Jewish-
or Christian-related artifact has ever been
found in the New World.
This is an impossibility if the culture of
Judaic peoples had in fact been brought to
the New World and resulted in civilization
existent for over a thousand years.
Artifacts of the civilizations of the
New World have been found in profusion
over the course of centuries of exploration
-- that exactly no sign of what should have
had at least some impact on New World culture,
let alone the significant impact that would be
consistent with the narrative posited in the
Book of Mormon, is simply not possible.
It is not necessary to dig up every square inch
of the New World before concluding that the
hypothesis posed by the Book of Mormon should
be judged false -- what is already known is
sufficient to do so.
Those who assert otherwise today are arguing from
a position that is not only merely faith-based,
but a faith-based position that is far weaker
than that of those who asserted otherwise when
the Book of Mormon first appeared -- a large
number of formerly proposed interpretations of
evidences purporting to correlate "Book of Mormon
peoples" with artifacts, which persuaded when
knowledge was scantier, have gone from plausible
to thoroughly discredited in time, even as no
artifacts that obviously correlate with
"Book of Mormon cultures" have emerged.
The chief defining hallmark of such cultures
would be some connection with the Jewish culture
from which they supposedly derived -- and supposedly
remained true to in practice during significantly
long periods of time.
Instead of finding such hallmarks, we find
those of civilizations that are truly completely
different, whose culture obviously sprang from
other sources and traditions.
Ramona
> On a serious note, Please show me ancient fossil records ofcamels
> from anywhere in the Middle East that date to 1,000 to 4,000 years
> ago. What? You can't? There aren't any? Well, obviously the camel
> never existed in the Middle East until the greys brought them from
> Mars during the Middle Ages.... :)
shocking to Red.
Now what was it that Brigham Young said about the Sun and the Moon
being inhabited?
Now offically done.
Ramona
>
>
RetroProphet
Etchelle says...
There is only ONE kind of truth.
Truth means nothing more than an assertion
that is demonstrated beyond opinion.
If an assertion is so demonstrated, you can
call it truth, and belief is unnecessary.
If an assertion is not, you can still believe
it is true, but you cannot call it truth.
It is merely an opinion.
Theological and philosophical musings do NOT
lead to truths, they only lead to opinions
-- because they only bear on matters concerning
relative value judgements.
Value judgements are important but they are
not demonstrable beyond opinion -- EVER.
You can call aliens arriving from Arcturus "evil"
for viewing humans as a food source, but this is
just an opinion predicated on your not wanting
to be a food source for them.
If this opinion is not shared by the aliens,
the TRUTH is that you are a food source for them,
and this is demonstrated beyond opinion as they
begin to eat you.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Science isn't a religion. Mormonism is a religion. One cannot
> > believe in both at the same time; it requires mental
> > compartmentalization because the two are at complete odds.
>
> A well expressed opinion,
Here's some logic behind the opinion:
1) Mormonism says the ancient Americans came to this continent by
ship, from the Middle East, bringing Old World plants, domesticated
horses, smelting steel, etc.
2) Science says no such civilization existed, that the plants
domesticated by the ancient Americans evolved in this hemisphere, and
that the ancient Americans didn't smelt metals (let alone iron/steel)
or domesticate horses (which went extinct by the dates given in the
Book of Mormon).
Multiply this a dozen times, or so, for conflicts between Mormonism
and science with regard to a literal universal flood, 6,000-year-old
earth, etc., etc., etc.
One could write a book about the conflicts between Mormonism and
science.
> but just as unprovable as mine.
Not at all. I've given specific examples, you just keep repeating
your opinion.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> On a serious note, Please show me ancient fossil records of camels
> from anywhere in the Middle East that date to 1,000 to 4,000 years
> ago. What? You can't? There aren't any? Well, obviously the camel
> never existed in the Middle East until the greys brought them from
> Mars during the Middle Ages.... :)
<snip>
I thought you said you are a scientist. Well, you must not be a very
good one. Any good scientist knows that (except in rare cases)
fossilization takes much more than 1,000 years. Fossilization is a
very specific process in which minerals replace the bone matrix --
replicating it in stone.
But one needn't have fossils to prove the ancient people of the Middle
East had camels -- we actually have the bones of their camels. In
addition we have ancient art that depicts camels. Here is a link that
can help you out:
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761564197
Camels also existed in ancient America -- long before the
civilizations described in the fictional Book of Mormon. Like horses,
they went extinct. There's no lack of evidence of the camels or
horses -- except among human ruins dated to BOM times. No camel bones
in their garbage dumps, no camels depicted in their art.
One of the reasons we know the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud is
that it's descriptions of ancient America are all wrong. The animals
are wrong, the people are wrong, the plants are wrong, the technology
is wrong, the clothing is wrong, the language is wrong -- it's wrong
in every non-trivial way, and most trivial ways as well.
It's not just a fraud, but a clumsy one. A fraud so clumsy that any
reasonably intelligent person in a well-equipped library could figure
it out in an hour or so.
NickYoungh
> On Jan 26, 6:58 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>> On a serious note, Please show me ancient fossil records of camels
> > from anywhere in the Middle East that date to 1,000 to 4,000 years
> > ago. What? You can't? There aren't any? Well, obviously the camel
> > never existed in the Middle East until the greys brought them from
> > Mars during the Middle Ages.... :)
very funny degradarion of our discussion, do you goys learn somethink
on this site? Camels are mentionned in Ether as cummings and
cummelons, who were in the 3 million army of Xerxes.
>
> > On 28 jan, 04:57, heartforisr...@webtv.net (Nancy) wrote:
> > Even more interesting should be DNA studies of the (no Red) Indian
> > tribe of the Bene Israël, because they have an indentical story of the
> > sea travel of Lehi and Nephi:
>
> > (quote)
> > "The Bene Israel" believe that their forefathers arrived in India
> > before the destruction of the second temple. The accepted version is
> > that their forefathers were sailing in a commercial ship from the Land
> > of Israel to India. The ship wrecked near the coast of Konkan. From
> > the ship survived 14 people, seven men and seven women. They swam
> > towards the land and arrived at the village called Navgaon. All their
> > belongings drowned in the sea. The dead bodies of the others from the
> > ship were buried in the village. The survivors somehow managed to
> > settle in the village and started working in agriculture and oil
> > producing which later on became their main profession. As time passed
> > the descendants of the survivors forgot Hebrew and their religious
> > tradition. But they carried out some of the Israeli tradition.
>
> > The Bene Israels observed Sabbath (Saturday) and abstained on this day
> > from any work. They circumcised their sons on the eighth day after
> > birth. They didn't eat fish which didn't had fins and scales. They
> > observed a few Israeli festivals and called them by Indian names, but
> > until their association with other Jewish communities they weren't
> > aware of the Hanukkah festival and the ninth of Ab fast.
> > (unquote)
>
> (Wikipedia)
> The Bene Israel claim a lineage to the Cohanim, which claims descent
> from Aaron, the brother of Moses. In 2002, a DNA test confirmed that
> the Bene Israel share the same heredity as the Cohanim.
> (unquote)
>
> So even DNA, which is no history !!, confirms my theory that Nephi ans
> Lehi did not sail to America but to Israël and the Nephites were the
> Jews in the Diaspora.
>
> http://groups.google.nl/group/the-book-of-mormon-in-the-classical-his...-
紐. L. Measures
<2e5b3398-86c0-46d8...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
** chortle. The real eyebrow-raiser is what he said about white women
doing IT with black men.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 28 jan, 19:44, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 6:58 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>> On a serious note, Please show me ancient fossil records of camels
> > > from anywhere in the Middle East that date to 1,000 to 4,000 years
> > > ago. What? You can't? There aren't any? Well, obviously the camel
> > > never existed in the Middle East until the greys brought them from
> > > Mars during the Middle Ages.... :)
>
> very funny degradarion of our discussion, do you goys learn somethink
> on this site? Camels are mentionned in Ether as cummings and
> cummelons, who were in the 3 million army of Xerxes.
Are those the aliens that built the pyramids?
BTW, thanks for your membership in the CDD. Dog loves you!
<snip to end>
Red Davis
wrote:
> In article <920e882e-13b1-4e90-ad98-3ce110ded...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Red Davis says...
>
>
>
> >How many times is steel mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
> >Answer: five times according to my Topical Guide, the last
> >being 400 B.C.
>
> >The first two reference weapons of war Nephi brought from the MIddle
> >East, Laban's Sword, and his bow of steel. One is during the Jaredite
> >period, leaving twice when simple lists of materials are given.
>
> >Now, question: besides Laban's sword and Nephi's bow -- what items
> >does the Book of Mormon describe as being made out of steel by the
> >Nephites?
> >Answer: not one thing.
>
> 2 Nephi 5:14 "And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban,
> and after the manner of it did make many swords."
>
> Doesn't sound like "not one thing" to me.
Weak, desparate. Three things:
1) Where does it say these swords are made of "steel"? It doesn't.
Given the word "steel" appears in the very next verse -- if these
swords were actually made out of steel -- why not just say so? Why?
Because, they were not made out of steel, they simply had a similar
shape and purpose, and were made after the "manner" of Laban's bow --
not the "material" of Laban's bow. Just like Nephi made a wooden bow
after the manner of his steel bow.
2) The listing of metals in the next verse is a common literary
practice when people make such lists of common items, "wood,
iron,...,copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of
silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance."
3) What happens when Nephi breaks his bow of steel about 592 B.C.
before they cross the Pacific to the promised land? 1 Nephi 16:23,
"And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make out of wood a bow, and
out of a straight stick, and arrow."
Thus, about 592 B.C. is the last time any weapon in the Book of Mormon
is described as being made out of "steel", Nephi is still in the
Eastern hemisphere, and it is replaced by a "wood" bow.
Now, if I may: to make a sword out of steel takes a much finer steel,
process, and knowledge then to make other items such as bowls or
pitchers. Given that no such weapons are described as being made out
of steel by the Nephites: please stop lying and saying they were.
So, again, where are items described as being made out of steel by the
Nephites? Not a single verse in the Book of Mormon states that any
particular item was made out of steel.
>
> >So, we don't have any items being specifically mentioned
> >as being made out of steel by the Nephites,
>
> Uh huh, except there's those many swords.
>
> 2 Nephi 5:14 "And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban,
> and after the manner of it did make many swords."
Repeating a lie twice while snapping your fingers doesn't make a valid
argument appear.
>
> You're not too swift are you?
> Then there's...
Considering you keep posting simple lists of materials given about 400
B.C. that I have already referenced and accounted for ..... you isn't
very bright, Mr. Ad Hominem?
>
> 2 Nephi 5:15 "And I did teach my people to build buildings,
> and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper,
> and of brass, and of steel..."
Again, what was made with the steel? There are varying qualities of
steel -- and again, this mention of steel is prior to 400 B.C.
There is no mention of steel anywhere in the Book of Mormon for its
last 800 years.
So, what is the likely hood that low quality steel items made over a
period of 150 years or so by a very small population are going to be
found by some archaeology dig in a very humid and rain soaked
climate? What, do you think -- Nephi's Navy was painting those low
quality steel items gray for the past 2,500 years? HA-HA-HA!
You do understand what happens to steel when it comes into contact
with moisture, right?
>
> Was Nephi teaching a theoretical class in working in steel?
> None of them made anything out of steel?
You get no adavnatage by misepresenting what I wrote, it can be
reviewed above. I wrote that no specific items are desribed as being
made out of steel. Thus, we do not know how much steel was made, nor
the quality of the steel.
But, we do know there is no mention of steel after 400 B.C., and that
if they were using high quality steel (thus more likely to survive the
climate for 2,500 years to be discovered in digs) -- they certainly
would have used such to make swords -- but there is never any
statement that any swords were made out of steel.
This is really the key point here in support of the Book of Mormon:
given there is no mention of steel in the Book of Mormon after 400
B.C., it stands to reason why the modern American Indians didn't have
steel: the technology had been lost a millenia prior to Columbus.
>
> >we don't even have the word "steel" being mentioned after
> >400 B.C. (The Book of Mormon covers 600 B.C. to about 420 A.D)
>
> Current theory holds that this was to save precious space
> on the plates -- as the reader has already been told that
There you go again -- making an ASSumption to help out your weak
attack.
If they were trying to save such space -- why all the "And it came to
pass" phrases? :)
Seriously though -- why not use the word "steel" to describe the
swords? Again, the reason it wasn't used was the same reason Nephi
didn't build another steel bow: they didn't have the technology to
build steel of such quality.
You know, now that I think about it: Nephi's bow is described as
being made out of "fine steel" (1 Nephi 16:18) Why does Nephi refer
to this steel used in a weapon as "fine steel" while referring to the
other steel in simple lists as "steel"? That is, it does not say they
are taught to work in "fine steel" -- like one would use for a weapon.
Here is a nice article describing how difficult it is to make steel of
a quality good enough (e.g., as Nephi described the steel in his bow
as "fine steel") for a weapon. Truly, one must use "fine steel" --
not plain old "steel":
http://people.howstuffworks.com/sword-making4.htm
> the Nephites were making their swords out of steel, it would
> be an enormous waste to keep saying they were made out of
> steel the subsequent thousand times that swords are mentioned.
> This fits well with the theory that the Nephites did not change
> the material they made their swords from.
What you are attempting to do is academically dishonest and
unethical. If the Book of Mormon is fake, why do you have to work so
hard to make it say things it doesn't say? If you have to lie and
misrepresent the contents of the Book of Mormon in order to prove it a
fake by virtue of your distortions -- I don't think you are so sure
its fake, or why do you lie so much to make it fake?
The Book of Mormon had plenty of opportunity to describe any and all
swords as being made out of steel. Yet, only a single sword, one
brought over from the Middle East, is described as being made out of
steel. The steel bow, made of "fine steel" is broken. When it is
broken -- it is replaced with a "wood bow".
The Nephites were not making their swords out of steel. Steel is never
mentioned again in the Book of Mormon after 400 B.C. It is of
interest to note that "gold" and "silver" are mentioned long after 400
B.C., and are described as being in 'abundance".
>
> >What happened to all the steel and "smelting" you were
> >falsely attributing to the Book of Mormon?
>
> What happened to your claim?: "What items does the
> Book of Mormon describe as being made out of steel
> by the Nephites? Answer: not one thing."
>
> Why, it's a false claim. How'd dat happen?
Again, keep denying reality. Keep lying about the contents of the
Book of Mormon in order to make it look like it is fake. But, you are
only fooling yourself, and making yourself look like a fool.
Again, we LDS apologists ask, "If the Book of Mormon is false, why do
opponents have to lie about it contents to support their accusations
that it is false"?
>
> >Why do you lie so much? Why do you hate the Mormons so much?
>
> I think it's quite clear who is lying.
> And for the record, I hate Morons, not Mormons.
No, it is clear you hate Mormons. That is why you lie early, and you
lif often. That is why you dismiss reason. That is why you are on
this list posting and attacking Latter-day Saints: you are posting out
of hatred and bitterness.
-Red Davis
Red Davis
wrote:
> On Jan 26, 6:10 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The Book of Mormon says the following things about great ancient
> > > American cultures. It's wrong in every case (if you think it's right,
> > > then name the great ancient American cultures that had these things,
> > > and back them up with verifiable objective evidence from the
> > > scientific literature):
>
> > > 1) Horses
>
> > So, are you saying there were no horses in Ancient America, only after
> > Europeans came over?
>
> I thought you said you were a scientist. Well, you must not be a very
> good one. Every scientist I know knows that horses evolved in the
> Western Hemisphere.
Well, that's true and false. You see, Book of Mormon critics used to
say that there were "never any horses in the Americas prior to
Columbus", and they used to quote scientists stating as much. Problem
was, they found horse remains in Lubbock, Texas, at the Lubbock Lake
Site, and they had to change their accusation to "no modern horses
every existed".
Some of these same "scientists" said that the Mammoth died out 11,000
B.C. Of course, that was before Mammoth were found at Wrangle Island
dating to 4,000 B.C.
Some of these same "scientists" said that homo sapien evolved from
Neanderthal, and I was taught that as a "scientific fact" in
elementary school -- as most children were. Except, of course, all
those fossils they have found in the past 15 years shows that homo
sapiens were contemporaries with Neanderthal, e.g., we didn't evolve
from them. Now, that "scientific fact" that was taught in public
schools has been discarded.
Amazing what can happen with one single fossil find.
Now, this is the problem with your statement: no reputable scientist
today would ever say that something "never" existed in the Americas or
anywhere else -- because the very next fossil find could make them
into the village idiot. A credible scientist will only speak to what
has been found -- not as to what can't be found.
Ditto with when humans supposedly evolved from apes. One DNA line
says 10 million years ago, another 6 million years ago. Which is it?
They both can't be right.
BTW, just how many horse fossils would you expect to find? Horses are
not dumb enough to go running into tar pits.
-Red Davis
RetroProphet
Red Davis says...
>
>On Jan 27, 4:00=A0am, RetroProphet <RetroProphet_mem...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> In article <920e882e-13b1-4e90-ad98-3ce110ded...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.=
Man, I underestimated how big a part lying plays
in your debating style -- you actually lopped off the
beginning of the verse ("And I did teach my people to
build buildings, and to work in all manner of...")
and then have the gall to claim that the verse is
merely a "list of common items" -- all to downplay
that the Nephites worked in steel.
It's not a list of common items, it's a list of
the materials the Nephites WORKED to MAKE common
items -- one of them being steel, obviously,
and one of those common items being SWORDS.
So you think that Nephi's teaching his people how
to work steel but decides to make swords out of
something else?
Even though it DOESN'T SAY that he made them out
of something else?
Even though IT DOES SAY says his people are working
in steel and making things out of it?
I though we were discussing the "Book of Mormon"
-- you seem to be reading from the "Book of Red Davis"
>
>3) What happens when Nephi breaks his bow of steel about 592 B.C.
>before they cross the Pacific to the promised land? 1 Nephi 16:23,
>"And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make out of wood a bow, and
>out of a straight stick, and arrow."
Maybe he couldn't find any ore lying around or think it was
worth setting up a smelting operation to make one bow
-- both being irrelevant once they got to the New World
where they obviously found ore and started to make things
out of steel -- as the Book of Mormon SAYS they did.
>Thus, about 592 B.C. is the last time any weapon in the Book of Mormon
>is described as being made out of "steel", Nephi is still in the
>Eastern hemisphere, and it is replaced by a "wood" bow.
So, Nephi specifically says that he's replacing the material
of the bow -- why wouldn't he say that he's replacing the
material of the steel swords? Only Red Davis is saying that.
Not the Book of Mormon. It doesn't say that at all.
>>
>> 2 Nephi 5:15 "And I did teach my people to build buildings,
>> and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper,
>> and of brass, and of steel..."
>
>Again, what was made with the steel? There are varying qualities of
>steel -- and again, this mention of steel is prior to 400 B.C.
>
Swords were made with the steel -- the immediately previous
verse says he was making many swords in the manner of a
steel sword -- manner means "kind" or "type" -- that's
the kind of sword he was making: the kind Laban had: steel.
Does "all manner of wood" mean "like wood" and having the shape
purpose of wood, but really being a material other than wood?
Of course not. That's just stupid.
Mormon apologists didn't start torturing these verses as
you're doing until it became apparent that they probably
weren't going to find any Nephite swords made of steel
-- or signs of Nephite civilization smelting.
And they will have this problem and look like intellectual
idiots until they find Nephite artifact #1. Not that they
*are* intellectual idiots -- they have been backed into
a position with no reasonable intellectual options that
can sustain their preconceptions. Hey, it happens.
When it happens you change your hypothesis. They can't
do that so they must change the evidence.
>There is no mention of steel anywhere in the Book of Mormon for its
>last 800 years.
>
>So, what is the likely hood that low quality steel items made over a
>period of 150 years or so by a very small population are going to be
>found by some archaeology dig in a very humid and rain soaked
>climate? What, do you think -- Nephi's Navy was painting those low
>quality steel items gray for the past 2,500 years? HA-HA-HA!
>
>You do understand what happens to steel when it comes into contact
>with moisture, right?
This would be a valid argument if you had actually found
ANY artifact of any of the Book of Mormon civilizations
-- which the Book of Mormon DOES NOT describe as being "small"
and DOES describe as lasting far longer than 150 years.
As it is, you haven't found artifact #1
-- made out of ANY material. Why is that?
>
>But, we do know there is no mention of steel after 400 B.C., and that
>if they were using high quality steel (thus more likely to survive the
>climate for 2,500 years to be discovered in digs) -- they certainly
>would have used such to make swords -- but there is never any
>statement that any swords were made out of steel.
>
>This is really the key point here in support of the Book of Mormon:
>given there is no mention of steel in the Book of Mormon after 400
>B.C., it stands to reason why the modern American Indians didn't have
>steel: the technology had been lost a millenia prior to Columbus.
That modern American Indians didn't have steel is explained
perfectly well by that they never had it -- it is sophistry
to suggest that this is explained BETTER by that they had it
and lost it, on the say so of one highly-questionable account
and that this constitutes a support of that account. It's also
a circular argument.
I was making a joke -- spoofing the style of Mormon apologetics.
Annoying style of argumentation isn't it?
You seem to dislike that I made the Book of Mormon
say things it doesn't say -- hey, what do you know,
that's just what you were doing! Non-steel swords?
Where does it say that.
ASSumptions? You took the cake for that when you
ASSumed that Nephi changed the material for the many swords
he was making and didn't bother to say so -- and that for
all the detail found in the Book of Mormon, all the mentions
of swords being used, the centrality of war and weaponry
to the book's story, no mention is EVER made of swords
being made in a manner that is completely different
than swords were ever made in the history of these people.
>> I think it's quite clear who is lying.
>> And for the record, I hate Morons, not Mormons.
>
>No, it is clear you hate Mormons. That is why you lie early, and you
>lie often. That is why you dismiss reason. That is why you are on
>this list posting and attacking Latter-day Saints: you are posting out
>of hatred and bitterness.
>
>-Red Davis
>
Give me a break -- if you'd told Joseph Smith that
the Nephites weren't making steel swords he would have
laughed in your face and pointed to the verses that said so.
If you told him that they were really making swords out
of wood and volcanic glass (feel free to insert any material
you like here -- what difference does it make if it's
YOUR story and not the one in the Book of Mormon?) he'd ask
you where it says that -- and you'd have to admit that it doesn't.
So who is dismissing reason?
He would have told you to stop the foolishness and to
have faith that Nephite artifacts would be found because
the Book of Mormon was true and not to make up things
that are not in the book to explain why they haven't been.
So who is dismissing faith?
I post to A.R.M. because I am a historian who is
fascinated by how religions originate and evolve
-- distorting and re-writing history to sustain
plausibility against the harsh face of reason.
You are providing an excellent example of such
in your response to me. Please continue doing so.
Why do I focus on Mormonism? Because it provides the
fullest account of this process available for study
-- the most detailed historical record of the emergence
of a new scripture-based religion within the most prevalent
religious tradition on earth.
Anybody who is aware of my activities here knows
that I do not hate people, I hate stupidity and
attempts to pass off the false for the true in
the service of theology.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Weak, desparate. Three things:
>
> 1) Where does it say these swords are made of "steel"? It doesn't.
Ether 7: 9 "Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten
out of the hill, and made swords out of asteel for those whom he had
drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he
returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor,
by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father
Kib."
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/7/9#9
If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Mormon apologists lie about what
it says?
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > I thought you said you were a scientist. Well, you must not be a very
> > good one. Every scientist I know knows that horses evolved in the
> > Western Hemisphere.
>
> Well, that's true and false.
You don't sound like a very good scientist, not if you are unaware of
the evolution of the horse. Here is a good site where you can learn
about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
> You see, Book of Mormon critics used to
> say that there were "never any horses in the Americas prior to
> Columbus",
First of all, you need to provide a citation. Without doing that,
you're just whistling in the wind (Note: Don't try to follow Guy's
example and cite Mormon rumors -- rumors are not a citation.)
Second, you are using a type of fallacious argument. It's fallacious
because it implies that "any wrong Mormon critic = Mormonism true."
The simple fact is this. According to the Book of Mormon the ancient
Americans kept herds of horses. It describes them pulling chariots.
But there's not a single archeological site dating to BOM times that
has horse bones or that depicts horses in art or writing. Fossilized
horse remains are common prior to their extinction in the Americas,
and non-existent after their extinction, prior to their re-
introduction into the Americas by the Europeans.
This scientific data, combined with historical accounts of Europeans,
is enough to convince any logical and rational person that the Book of
Mormon account of large herds of domesticated horses kept by ancient
Americans is pure myth.
This is a good time to point out that horses, even if they *did* exist
as domesticated animals among the ancient Americans, would not
constitute evidence for the Book of Mormon because there's no reason
to think a 19th century author wouldn't put them in a fictional
story. However, their absences is strong proof that the Book of
Mormon is a fraud. Combined with the absence of other things
described in the Book of Mormon (plants, clothing, steel/iron, etc.) a
logical/rational person quickly concludes the Book of Mormon is a
clumsy fraud.
NickYoungh
>
> > >How many times is steel mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
> > >Answer: five times according to my Topical Guide, the last
> > >being 400 B.C.
No, there is a mention of Labans sword in Mosiah 100bC
>
> > >The first two reference weapons of war Nephi brought from the MIddle
> > >East, Laban's Sword, and his bow of steel.
One is during the Jaredite period,
Ether is just the same story as the BoM 600bC
>>>leaving twice when simple lists of materials are given.
> > 2 Nephi 5:14 "And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban,
> > and after the manner of it did make many swords."
> 3) What happens when Nephi breaks his bow of steel about 592 B.C.
> before they cross the Pacific to the promised land? 1 Nephi 16:23,
> "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make out of wood a bow, and
> out of a straight stick, and arrow."
The references in the BoM about steel are much in line with the
history of iron steel
(Wikipedia)
Steel was known in antiquity, and may have been produced by managing
the bloomery so that the bloom contained carbon.[9] Some of the first
steel comes from East Africa, dating back to 1400 BC.[10] In the 4th
century BC steel weapons like the Falcata were produced in the Iberian
peninsula. The Chinese of the Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD) created
steel by melting together wrought iron with cast iron, gaining an
ultimate product of a carbon-intermediate--steel by the 1st century AD.
[11][12] Along with their original methods of forging steel, the
Chinese had also adopted the production methods of creating Wootz
steel, an idea imported from India to China by the 5th century AD.
[13] Wootz steel was produced in India and Sri Lanka from around 300
BC. This early steel-making method employed the use of a wind furnace,
blown by the monsoon winds.
[14] Also known as Damascus steel, wootz is famous for its durability
and ability to hold an edge.
(unquote)
One should keep in mind, that JS dictated in trance with a thick
tongue the BoM to his downwriting mother and friends.
So it appears to me that when he dictated 1 Nephi 16:23 "out of wood a
bow",
he realy said that Nephi made "a bow out of Wootz", the famous
Damascus steel, reputated for its durability and ability to hold an
edge.
In my earlier vieuws the people of Nephi were indentified as the
Chalibes from Syria, famous for their swordworks still known as the
Exhalibur, which was driven by king Arthur through a rock stone.
Thats why the sword of Laban could be used for 500 years from Nephi
till Mosiah.
It confirms as well that Lehi travelled alongside the Nile in the
Sudan Meroë
where steelfornaces were much in use, and not in underdevellopped
Arabia, where are no persistent streams
John Manning
Ether 7: 9; "Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten
out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had
drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he
returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor,
NickYoungh
> Ether 7: 9; "Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten
> out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had
> drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he
> returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor,
> by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father
> Kib."- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Ether is about the 2million man army of the historical king Xerxes I
of Persia
Mormon Coreantumr is Biblical Coresh and Shiz is Spartan Leonitas.
The Persians as well as the Greek has alot of steel swords.
Etchelle
wrote:
> In article <00bc956b-51aa-48e2-9d51-acdc68384...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> There is only ONE kind of truth.
>
> Truth means nothing more than an assertion
> that is demonstrated beyond opinion.
That comprises one important definition of truth... but I would think
that there are many definitions of truth... at least as many as there
are people who use the phrase. After all the English language is not
self enforcing as to individual understanding of the definitions of
words.
You don't get to be so arrogant as to use your definition of truth
(call it ONE KIND is like saying there is only one god... very
juvenile, and very wrong.) to express your beliefs unless you want to
live in a very small box.
I really think that due to the ambiguity of the English language I
will stay with multiple definitions of truth... Thank you anyway.
>
> If an assertion is so demonstrated, you can
> call it truth, and belief is unnecessary.
>
Thank you Webster wannabe, but belief isn't a bad thing to everyone,
just to they whom want fixed outcomes to actions... a classical
definition of Satan himself as documented in various places...
And please don't resort to trying to throw this discussion off by
requiring volumes of quotations...
That is simply another trick to deflect the point of the discussion,
and in my mind is the grasping at straws of the one who doesn't want
to face blunt on what is being said.
> If an assertion is not, you can still believe
> it is true, but you cannot call it truth.
> It is merely an opinion.
You are just breaking me up with your narrow definitions...
You have absolutely no right whatsoever to put your definitions of
truth and opinion onto anther person without their permission.. That
is exactly what Satan would like.
So you are just by your own definition stating an opinion... LOL
>
> Theological and philosophical musings do NOT
> lead to truths, they only lead to opinions
> -- because they only bear on matters concerning
> relative value judgements.
Webster would roll over in his grave...
And do you claim to be talking from a higher platform than relative
value judgments.
Just how did you adjudicate the truth from the seething morass of
stuff out there?
What secret mechanism do you have that we don't have.... OH please do
tell?
>
> Value judgements are important but they are
> not demonstrable beyond opinion -- EVER.
>
Hey the first thing you said that actually can be agreed upon by this
party.
So everything you have said heretofore is opinion... hey I respect
that.
And I agree to disagree on this if necessary.
> You can call aliens arriving from Arcturus "evil"
> for viewing humans as a food source, but this is
> just an opinion predicated on your not wanting
> to be a food source for them.
>
> If this opinion is not shared by the aliens,
> the TRUTH is that you are a food source for them,
> and this is demonstrated beyond opinion as they
> begin to eat you.
Cute but irrelevant to the attempt you made to redefine concepts
(universally I might add) to suit your own limited scope.
Is would be a very difficult task for the two of us to come to a
mutually set of definitions of TRUTH.
Without that I would have to read your comments regarding truth as
very narrow minded, and inappropriate for discussion about things like
religion. You simply are not qualified.
Etchelle
Unknown
<RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Red probably goes to the temple. I assume that he responds positively
to the question about being honest in his dealings. It has always
perplexed me how mormons that I have dealt with are able to
rationalize their lives. Honesty is displayed in representing the
truth and not shaving a verse. This is dishonest and most honorable
members of the human race can recognize that. But not mormon
apologetics. Not bearing false witness doesn't apply to them.
>
[snip]
>
Just James
<crickets chirping>
--
Just James
"You can call aliens arriving from Arcturus "evil"
for viewing humans as a food source, but this is
just an opinion predicated on your not wanting
to be a food source for them.
If this opinion is not shared by the aliens,
the TRUTH is that you are a food source for them,
and this is demonstrated beyond opinion as they
begin to eat you."
~ RetroProphet ARM 1/9/08
紐. L. Measures
<4b51a62f-3e82-4fbb...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 9:54=A0pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Weak, desparate. =A0Three things:
> >
> > 1) =A0Where does it say these swords are made of "steel"? =A0It doesn't.
>
> Ether 7: 9 "Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten
> out of the hill, and made swords out of asteel for those whom he had
> drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he
> returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor,
> by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father
> Kib."
>
> http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/7/9#9
>
> If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Mormon apologists lie about what
> it says?
>
** "My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect
what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of
priesthood testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the
divine mission of the Savior. ... ... Everything may be sacrificed in
order to maintain the integrity of
those essential facts.
~~ Apostle Dallin Oaks,
紐. L. Measures
<adc226e7-4f4e-4c98...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
NickYoungh <dejon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 jan, 06:54, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >How many times is steel mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
> > > >Answer: five times according to my Topical Guide, the last
> > > >being 400 B.C.
>
> No, there is a mention of Labans sword in Mosiah 100bC
> >
> > > >The first two reference weapons of war Nephi brought from the MIddle
> > > >East, Laban's Sword, and his bow of steel.
>
> One is during the Jaredite period,
> Ether is just the same story as the BoM 600bC
>
> >>>leaving twice when simple lists of materials are given.
>
>
> > > 2 Nephi 5:14 "And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban,
> > > and after the manner of it did make many swords."
>
> > 3) What happens when Nephi breaks his bow of steel about 592 B.C.
> > before they cross the Pacific to the promised land? 1 Nephi 16:23,
> > "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make out of wood a bow, and
> > out of a straight stick, and arrow."
>
> The references in the BoM about steel are much in line with the
> history of iron steel
>
> (Wikipedia)
>
> Steel was known in antiquity, ...
** To a high school Freshman, WW-II is antiquity.
紐. L. Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
• ... just another stupid mo-fo Anti Out of Context trick to try and
discredit prophet Smith. .
紐. L. Measures
<7e064df7-7b0c-4eb1...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
NickYoungh <dejon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
** Nick -- When did the Persians switch from bronze weapons to steel weapons?
John Manning
There was no steel production in the Americas during the Book of Mormon
times.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> So, again, where are items described as being made out of steel by the
> Nephites? Not a single verse in the Book of Mormon states that any
> particular item was made out of steel.
<snip>
Jarom 1:8 "And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of
the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in
precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in
machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making
all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of
war -- yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and
the javelin, and all preparations for war."
This description of ancient America, found in the Book of Mormon, is
completely false. The ancient Americans didn't work in brass, steel,
or iron.
Mormon apologists realize the problem -- thus the need to lie about
what the Book of Mormon says.
紐. L. Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
• Maybe the evidence of Nephite steel mills was plumb washed out into the
Atlantic by the rain from the storm clouds seen during the crucifiction of
Jesus of Nazareth?
紐. L. Measures
<63746e56-44dc-4a70...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 9:54=A0pm, Red Davis <theredda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > So, again, where are items described as being made out of steel by the
> > Nephites? =A0Not a single verse in the Book of Mormon states that any
> > particular item was made out of steel.
> <snip>
>
> Jarom 1:8 "And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of
> the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in
> precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in
> machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making
> all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of
> war -- yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and
> the javelin, and all preparations for war."
>
> This description of ancient America, found in the Book of Mormon, is
> completely false. The ancient Americans didn't work in brass, steel,
> or iron.
>
> D.A.: Mormon apologists realize the problem -- thus the need to lie about
> what the Book of Mormon says.
>
** Considering the plethora of problems with the Book of Mormon, I find
it incredulous that TBMs participate on ARM.
"In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things
the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped
mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard
of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told
by a child, with utter disregard for consistency." {Roberts, B. H. Studies
of the Book of Mormon., page 251}
"john p"
> *R. L. Measures wrote:
> > In article
> > NickYoungh <dejonghn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 29 jan, 18:12, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> >>> Ether 7: 9; "Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten
> >>> out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had
> >>> drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he
> >>> returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor,
> >>> by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father
> >>> Kib."- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
> >> Ether is about the 2million man army of the historical king Xerxes I
> >> of Persia
> >> Mormon Coreantumr is Biblical Coresh and Shiz is Spartan Leonitas.
>
> >> The Persians as well as the Greek has alot of steel swords.
>
> > ** Nick -- When did the Persians switch from bronze weapons to steel weapons?
>
> There was no steel production in the Americas during the Book of Mormon
> times.
All the evidence was taken to a cloud on mars to test our faith on
earth.
NickYoungh
> *R. L. Measures wrote: NickYoungh <dejonghn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Persians as well as the Greek has alot of steel swords.
>
> > ** Nick -- When did the Persians switch from bronze weapons to steel weapons?
The question surprises me, did not check it when I shutwrote from the
hip, will look it up now., you did, didnt you ?
>
> There was no steel production in the Americas during the Book of Mormon
> times.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Why you think the BoM is situated in the USA ? ( BoM book, chaptor,
verses)
1 Nephi 18:23 And we arrived at "the promissed land"(Israël)
Moreover only the Persians (in Asia) are known to have had an
historical army of 2 million man. So the Mormon book Ether have to be
about the Persian kings.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 30 jan, 17:20, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > *R. L. Measures wrote: NickYoungh <dejonghn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> The Persians as well as the Greek has alot of steel swords.
>
> > > ** Nick -- When did the Persians switch from bronze weapons to steel weapons?
>
> The question surprises me, did not check it when I shutwrote from the
> hip, will look it up now., you did, didnt you ?
>
>
>
> > There was no steel production in the Americas during the Book of Mormon
> > times.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> Why you think the BoM is situated in the USA ? ( BoM book, chaptor,
> verses)
Critics don't think it happened anywhere because the Book of Mormon is
fiction. But Mormon prophets said it took place in the Americas, and
so does Mormon scripture.
> 1 Nephi 18:23 And we arrived at "the promissed land"(Israël)
The Book of Mormon never says the Promised Land was Israel. It
describes people leaving Jerusalem and traveling by ship for roughly a
year to reach the "promised land."
Clearly, that doesn't suggest that the "promised land" in the Book of
Mormon is "Israel."
Your argument suffers from a common malady in human cognition -- the
ability to find patterns where none exist.
> Moreover only the Persians (in Asia) are known to have had an
> historical army of 2 million man. So the Mormon book Ether have to be
> about the Persian kings.
You just said it took place in Israel, and now you move the story to
Persia?
Look, if you're going to reason like this then you can say "Gulliver's
Travels" is true, and patch together a story for it, too. All you
have to do is find *something* that fits the story *somewhere* and
then say the story happened there. And if the next thing happened
somewhere else, well, move the story again. Presto chango, we go from
Israel to Persia to wherever the hell you need to fly to keep the
story alive.
NickYoungh
> NickYoungh <dejonghn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29 jan, 18:12, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > Ether 7: 9; "Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten
> > > out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had
> > > drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he
> > > returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor,
> > > by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father
> > > Kib."- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > Ether is about the 2million man army of the historical king Xerxes I
> > of Persia
> > Mormon Coreantumr is Biblical Coresh and Shiz is Spartan Leonitas.
>
> > The Persians as well as the Greek has alot of steel swords.
>
> ** Nick -- When did the Persians switch from bronze weapons to steel weapons?
Will this do ?
Alexander the great lived 100 years laterthan Xerxes I, but still.
It proves my dating of Ether around 350bC much better than the dating
of the BYU and the exantimo's of 2000bC
Damascus Steel--A Rediscovery?
by Oleg D. Sherby, Ph.D.
Dr. Sherby is professor of materials science and engineering at
Stanford University. He's a member of the National Academy of
Engineering and, among other important awards, received the Gold Medal
from the American Society of Metals in 1985. He co-holds seven U.S.
patents and has 280 publications.
Damascus steel was a legendary steel. With a keen edge that virtually
never dulled, it was good enough for Alexander the Great, who
conquered the known world by the age of 25, in the third century B.C.
And although Alexander's use of Damascus steel may just be myth, the
steel can certainly be found in museum specimens from later eras.