[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 08:15 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't even know how to make sense of this incoherent response.

There is absolutely nothing incoherent about it, but you're welcome to specify.

(03-01-2014 08:15 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I suggest you to take your own advice and stick to what I actually said. Drinking Beverage

You said the following:

Quote:Oh my, the responses from Mormon apologists to these points of criticism are textbook examples of fringe science.

Which, while accurate, is completely off-topic, as is the post to which you were replying. I'm trying to nip this derailment in the bud so we can stay on topic. If I was too curt with you, I apologize, but I really have no interest in trying to mediate between the two rhetorical poles of this argument.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 08:29 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
These 2 wiki articles might be helpful in this discussion...

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Genetics and the Book of Mormon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 08:35 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 08:29 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  These 2 wiki articles might be helpful in this discussion...

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Genetics and the Book of Mormon

There you go bringing facts into this ad hom fight Tongue

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
03-01-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 02:28 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 01:00 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  and seem to think everyone else should be a schooled theologin or shut up.

When they're trying to talk down to religion as a whole, yes, they ought to know what they're talking about or just keep their mouths shut. Wouldn't you agree that people with no background in physics shouldn't spend all their time on the internet harping about how stupid M-theory is?

How much do us beneath yourself need to know about religion to be able to point out the absudities of the concept or "talk down" about it? Many, like myself, grew up in it and experienced it which gives me the right to call it all for what it is - manmade mind control bullshit. Please stop finding a problem with everyone's testimony, and stop dancing around any challenge for the primary purpose of making others looks like idiots. And your characterter flaw you pointed out many posts ago is what really girnds my nerves concerning any human being.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 08:42 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 07:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 06:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you are either misunderstanding the data or making this up - it's impossible to know since you provided no references. The non-historicity of the Book of Mormon is all but certain to anyone not blinded by faith. You can squirm all you want, but the DNA evidence is utterly against your attempted interpretation.








Just how in the fucking hell did those people manage to loose all trace of the industry required to make silk fabric (silkworms not seen outside of China until 300CE, the knowledge of making it into textile remaining a trade secret until the 6th century)?


A steel industry capable of producing swords, chains, and chariots (no iron working, no iron or coal mines, no steel mills)? Seriously, it's one thing to lose a steel sword, but how in the hell do you lose a whole steel mill?


A complete lack of claimed non-native animals and plants (such as cattle, oxen, horses, sheep, swine, elephants, wheat, figs, and barley)?




I mean, really. There are so many blatantly stupid anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, this feels less like internet sport and more like shooting fish in a barrel with a Minigun...






Epic response.
[Image: adc5f1f6.jpg]

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
03-01-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 08:06 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 06:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you are either misunderstanding the data or making this up

No, you're just not very up on the currents in population genetics or Book of Mormon scholarship. I think you're also imposing presuppositions about what you think I mean on what I'm saying, which is leading to misunderstanding. Most significantly, you are assuming that I am arguing for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which I am explicitly not. I'd appreciate it if you could take that into consideration before you blow up this thread with reasons you think the Book of Mormon is not historical. I will not be responding to any such concerns. My point here is only to show that Rev's characterization of the state of the DNA question is incomplete and reductive, and misconstrues the data. The biggest factor in applying DNA data to the Book of Mormon is what inferences and assumptions you bring to, and draw from, the Book of Mormon about Native American populations, and those inferences and assumptions are vastly varied, making it rather silly to pretend it can all be reduced to completely objective and definitive statements. Again, this is not to argue for Book of Mormon historicity, but just to show that it's much more complex than you appear to be aware. You're just buying into fundie Christian rhetoric without understanding the issues because it happens to confirm your presuppositions. Try to be a little more judicious and objective and you won't run into those problems.

I am 'buying into fundie Christian rhetoric'? Are you insane? The genetic evidence makes clear that the Book of Mormon is not accurate, to say the least.

Quote:
(03-01-2014 06:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  it's impossible to know since you provided no references.

Yeah, that article's over six years old. This article, from 2013, shows that even a three-wave model is too simplistic. This article shows that the X2a clade found in North American DNA came from the Near East roughly 18-20,000 years BP. This could go on and on, but I'm not interested in wasting my time. As I pointed out, the Near Eastern elements in American DNA are not evidence of anything related to the Book of Mormon. Rather, this just shows that the claim REv made that there are no Near Eastern markers whatsoever in Native American DNA is demonstrably untrue. I'm not arguing for Book of Mormon historicity, I'm just showing that making definitive and absolute claims about what the DNA supports in the interest of attacking the Book of Mormon leads to inaccurate statements. Save the rhetoric and please try to understand what I'm saying instead of just automatically contradicting what I'm saying because I'm a knuckle-dragging Mormon.

I have said nothing inconsistent with that paper. I will again say that you seem to misunderstand the research. That paper discusses the details of how many waves of migration there were - all of them from Asia.

Quote:
(03-01-2014 06:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  The non-historicity of the Book of Mormon is all but certain to anyone not blinded by faith. You can squirm all you want, but the DNA evidence is utterly against your attempted interpretation.

I am not squirming at all, and you don't even appear to know what "interpretation" I've "attempted." I'm not arguing for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I'm just showing that your (pl.) rhetorical zeal to combat the Book of Mormon has caused you (pl.) to misunderstand and misrepresent the DNA data. In the future, please refrain from making assumptions about my claims and just respond to what I actually say. You'll save us all a lot of trouble.

There is no 'rhetorical zeal' going on, just simple refutation of obvious myth with science. I have not misrepresented the DNA data in any way.

If you do not wish to be challenged, I suggest you stay away from making ignorant claims.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-01-2014, 08:53 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
I'm ex mormon maklelan, I have followed this thread with interest. As a point of clarification, please could you tell us directly whether or not you believe the book of mormon to be a true and accurate historical document as claimed so by LDS church leaders?

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Monster_Riffs's post
03-01-2014, 08:54 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 09:09 AM by Chas.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 05:50 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 03:19 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  See this is what is called Special Pleading the evidence is not there, the native American population shows Asian descent (by way of africa as do all humans) not a ANE origin. There is some European splashed in there but to try and force the conclusion that "Well they just haven't found the link" based on this evidence is not good science.

Well, I'm not saying we just haven't found the link. It may or may not be there, but that doesn't mean much. The historicity of the Book of Mormon (to which I'm not particularly committed anyway) is not particularly problematized by the absence of DNA markers. Only the traditional and conservative reading of the Book of Mormon's claims about the population of the Americas (which has had detractors since the beginning) is problematized by it. Next, there are indeed ancient Near Eastern markers. The Haplogroup X markers from some Native American samples is Near Eastern in origin. Finally, the evidence increasingly supports multiple immigration waves, and not necessarily entire from east Asia.

You are misrepresenting the data.
Quote:A maximum parsimony tree of 21 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences belonging to haplogroup X and the survey of the haplogroup-associated polymorphisms in 13,589 mtDNAs from Eurasia and Africa revealed that haplogroup X is subdivided into two major branches, here defined as “X1” and “X2.” The first is restricted to the populations of North and East Africa and the Near East, whereas X2 encompasses all X mtDNAs from Europe, western and Central Asia, Siberia, and the great majority of the Near East, as well as some North African samples. Subhaplogroup X1 diversity indicates an early coalescence time, whereas X2 has apparently undergone a more recent population expansion in Eurasia, most likely around or after the last glacial maximum. It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences that constitute the distinctive X2a clade, a clade that lacks close relatives in the entire Old World, including Siberia. The position of X2a in the phylogenetic tree suggests an early split from the other X2 clades, likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 08:24 AM)maklelan Wrote:  There is absolutely nothing incoherent about it, but you're welcome to specify.
Your response is incoherent both because its wording is confusing [1] and because it misrepresents the contents of my post [2].

[1] I still don't know what the phrase "belligerently brutalizing" is supposed to mean after reading your post several times since there is no object that relates to it.

[2] At no point did I "pull out a straw man" or "assume that that [defending the historical accuracy of TBoM] is where you're headed"; I would appreciate it if you would retract these false accusations.

(03-01-2014 08:24 AM)maklelan Wrote:  You said the following:

Quote:Oh my, the responses from Mormon apologists to these points of criticism are textbook examples of fringe science.

Which, while accurate, is completely off-topic, as is the post to which you were replying. I'm trying to nip this derailment in the bud so we can stay on topic. If I was too curt with you, I apologize, but I really have no interest in trying to mediate between the two rhetorical poles of this argument.
As far as I can tell, both EK's and my posts were on-topic because the accuracy of the information in The Book of Mormon is this discussion's topic.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 08:38 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  How much do us beneath yourself need to know about religion to be able to point out the absudities of the concept or "talk down" about it?

Well, I would say you at least ought be able to respect the cognitive and evolutionary foundations of religious worldviews. Of course, that might mitigate pejorative comments about its "absurdities," but that's the risk one runs when one gains knowledge. People tend to be the most antagonistic toward things they don't understand.

(03-01-2014 08:38 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Many, like myself, grew up in it and experienced it which gives me the right to call it all for what it is - manmade mind control bullshit.

And many, perhaps like you, also cling to the conceptualization of religion you had when you rejected it, which often means the conceptualization and depth of understanding of a seventeen year old (i.e., not that deep). If you really think of religion as "manmade mind control bullshit" then you don't really understand it at all, you just buy into reductive and ignorant rhetoric because it makes you feel better about your own worldview.

(03-01-2014 08:38 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Please stop finding a problem with everyone's testimony, and stop dancing around any challenge for the primary purpose of making others looks like idiots. And your characterter flaw you pointed out many posts ago is what really girnds my nerves concerning any human being.

Perhaps when you have some advanced level of training, education, or experience in a particular field, someone without that level of understanding will come along and start spewing at you ignorant misrepresentations and criticisms of your field and of you personally, and then get all huffy when you point out that they have no idea what they're talking about in a way that they find too pompous. If that ever happens, I'd like you to remember your comments here.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like maklelan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: