[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:57 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 09:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I think you meant to say "he pulled out the guitar to start playing".

Nu-uh! (Yeah, you're right.)

(03-01-2014 09:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I furthermore think that "Can we just stick to what I'm actually saying instead of belligerently brutalizing the straw man you pulled out because you assume that that's where I'm headed?" would have been a better, less convoluted formulation.

I could have stated it more precisely, you are right.

(03-01-2014 09:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  In any case, thanks for the clarification; I stand corrected.

(03-01-2014 09:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You're correct on both accounts. I will make sure to let you know when I intend to make a reference to any of your arguments.

Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize. I got testy and just assumed you were referring obliquely to me. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
I both accept and appreciate your apology; no hard feelings. Yes

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:55 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 09:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  He seems to not take a literalist stance with it (something had he said at the beginning probably would have saved him a few pages of responses)

Yeah, probably, but I've found that if I begin with that qualification, it's often interpreted as an invitation to probe me for an explanation as to why I'm a Latter-day Saint, and I find that a tedious and fruitless discussion more often than not.

So as a non-literalist why are you a latter day... Naw I'm just fucking with you. Tongue

Your metaphysics are your own and as long as you keep it that way I got no problem with em. The literalist part was what I could not wrap my head around, how someone so versed in the history and origins could think that these books were word for word true. I don't tend to interact with most of the "theists" that come along as they tend to know nothing about religion (some of the stuff they spout is just ridiculous) so it is refreshing to have someone that knows their stuff.

(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
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
03-01-2014, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 10:31 AM by maklelan.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  But you are wrong. The X2 haplogroup present in Native American DNA is from very early homo sapiens by way of Asia. It is not directly from the Middle East.

Incorrect. Haplogroup X is rare in East Asia, apart from the Altay populations, but the specific clade X2a is absent from those populations. From the conclusion to that article:

Quote:Finally, phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of subhaplogroup X2, and the associated population dispersal occurred around, or after, the LGM when the climate ameliorated. The presence of a daughter clade in northern Native Americans testifies to the range of this population expansion.

Note, it doesn't say anything like a "genetic contribution to Asian populations" is responsible for the clade in Native Americans, but the actual "population expansion" itself. However you interpret it, the following statement, which is the one I challenged to begin with, is demonstrably false:

Quote:the Genetic thing is 100% no middle eastern blood in the Natives.

(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  You misunderstand what you read. The paper specifically says that all of the waves were from East Asia.

This particular paper did, yes. I didn't challenge that.

(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  What is the point that 'I continue to avoid'?

The points I explicitly stated. Here they are, quoted in the very post to which you are responding:

Quote:Yes, you have. You have insisted that it undermines the accuracy Book of Mormon, which I have repeatedly explained is not true, given the text can be interpreted numerous different ways, with only more traditional and old interpretations being problematized by the data. You continue to ignore this point and presuppose that there is only one way to read the text, the way that is conclusively undermined by the DNA evidence. You've also ignored my point about not really caring about defending the historicity of the book. You are so convinced that I'm an apologist you have to defeat that you are ignoring all the points I'm making that don't fit your conceptualization of me. All you care about is winning an argument against a stupid theist, and you're willing to completely ignore repeated requests to actually engage my real concerns in the interest of selectively highlighting whatever claims, real or imagined, you think you can dismantle.

(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  The book says what it says

That's a phenomenally stupid tautology, Chas. Certainly you're not so naive as to think that a text actually bears an objective and single meaning apart from an interpreter. Do you really need to be brought up to speed on how readers create meaning?

Quote:and what it says is wrong.

That depends on how you interpret what it says.

(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you wish to put some other spin on what the text says, go right ahead - but that doesn't alter the text. I am not arguing about your interpretation.

Then you are more naive than I thought.

(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am arguing that you do not understand the DNA evidence, that you are mischaracterizing it.

And you're doing a bang-up job.

(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  How am I misrepresenting you?

I've already explained this, and you evidently think that the people reading this thread are illiterate. For example, you quote an assertion of mine above and then demand examples, completely ignoring that the rest of the paragraph after my quote is a list of examples. How old are you? This is middle school rhetoric, Chas.

(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Better understanding of what?

Of what I'm actually trying to show.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 10:21 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 10:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  So as a non-literalist why are you a latter day...

Hey! Hey! What did I just say?!?

(03-01-2014 10:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Naw I'm just fucking with you. Tongue

Your metaphysics are your own and as long as you keep it that way I got no problem with em.

That's the way I like it. You'll never hear me insist that any faith claim needs to be adopted by anyone.

(03-01-2014 10:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The literalist part was what I could not wrap my head around, how someone so versed in the history and origins could think that these books were word for word true. I don't tend to interact with most of the "theists" that come along as they tend to know nothing about religion (some of the stuff they spout is just ridiculous) so it is refreshing to have someone that knows their stuff.

Thumbsup

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
03-01-2014, 10:29 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 10:03 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  This post popped up for me after I hit send on my last one. So for clarity, it isn't my intention to probe as you put it but I am sincerely interested. You must admit, your stance is non too common and warrants interest from an ex Mormon like me. ... However if you don't think it's worth your time to explain it, I completely understand.

Actually there are a lot of us out there in the academic and professional communities. My work day is getting into full swing, though, and I don't think I can commit the time to a full explanation today. In the mean time, if you're interested in others like me, this website has numerous links to academic blogs by Latter-day Saints who are feminists, Marxists, scholars of early American religious history, philosophers, and representatives of numerous other none too common groups.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 10:39 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 10:29 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 10:03 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  This post popped up for me after I hit send on my last one. So for clarity, it isn't my intention to probe as you put it but I am sincerely interested. You must admit, your stance is non too common and warrants interest from an ex Mormon like me. ... However if you don't think it's worth your time to explain it, I completely understand.

Actually there are a lot of us out there in the academic and professional communities. My work day is getting into full swing, though, and I don't think I can commit the time to a full explanation today. In the mean time, if you're interested in others like me, this website has numerous links to academic blogs by Latter-day Saints who are feminists, Marxists, scholars of early American religious history, philosophers, and representatives of numerous other none too common groups.

That's great. I'll certainly take a look. Thank you.

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
03-01-2014, 10:39 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 10:16 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  But you are wrong. The X2 haplogroup present in Native American DNA is from very early homo sapiens by way of Asia. It is not directly from the Middle East.

Incorrect. Haplogroup X is rare in East Asia, apart from the Altay populations, but the specific clade X2a is absent from those populations. From the conclusion to that article:

Quote:Finally, phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of subhaplogroup X2, and the associated population dispersal occurred around, or after, the LGM when the climate ameliorated. The presence of a daughter clade in northern Native Americans testifies to the range of this population expansion.

Note, it doesn't say anything like a "genetic contribution to Asian populations" is responsible for the clade in Native Americans, but the actual "population expansion" itself.

Actually, it does.
Quote:These findings leave unanswered the question of the geographic source of Native American X2a in the Old World, although our analysis provides new clues about the time of the arrival of haplogroup X in the Americas. Indeed, if we assume that the two complete Native American X sequences (from one Navajo and one Ojibwa) began to diverge while their common ancestor was already in the Americas, we obtain a coalescence time of 18,000 ± 6,800 YBP, implying an arrival time not later than 11,000 YBP.

Quote:
(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  You misunderstand what you read. The paper specifically says that all of the waves were from East Asia.

This particular paper did, yes. I didn't challenge that.

(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  What is the point that 'I continue to avoid'?

The points I explicitly stated. Here they are, quoted in the very post to which you are responding:

Quote:Yes, you have. You have insisted that it undermines the accuracy Book of Mormon, which I have repeatedly explained is not true, given the text can be interpreted numerous different ways, with only more traditional and old interpretations being problematized by the data. You continue to ignore this point and presuppose that there is only one way to read the text, the way that is conclusively undermined by the DNA evidence. You've also ignored my point about not really caring about defending the historicity of the book. You are so convinced that I'm an apologist you have to defeat that you are ignoring all the points I'm making that don't fit your conceptualization of me. All you care about is winning an argument against a stupid theist, and you're willing to completely ignore repeated requests to actually engage my real concerns in the interest of selectively highlighting whatever claims, real or imagined, you think you can dismantle.

(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  The book says what it says

That's a phenomenally stupid tautology, Chas. Certainly you're not so naive as to think that a text actually bears an objective and single meaning apart from an interpreter. Do you really need to be brought up to speed on how readers create meaning?

I understand that post-modern assertion, however the text has intrinsic meaning and author intent.

Quote:
Quote:and what it says is wrong.

That depends on how you interpret what it says.

How about by not interpreting it and taking it at face value?

Quote:
(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you wish to put some other spin on what the text says, go right ahead - but that doesn't alter the text. I am not arguing about your interpretation.

Then you are more naive than I thought.

How is not arguing with your interpretation in any way naive? You're starting to go all ad hominem here.

Quote:
(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am arguing that you do not understand the DNA evidence, that you are mischaracterizing it.

And you're doing a bang-up job.

Yes, I'm doing a bang-up job of showing your misinterpretation.

Quote:
(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  How am I misrepresenting you?

I've already explained this, and you evidently think that the people reading this thread are illiterate. For example, you quote an assertion of mine above and then demand examples, completely ignoring that the rest of the paragraph after my quote is a list of examples. How old are you? This is middle school rhetoric, Chas.

You have conflated my statements with Revs throughout this whole exchange, so I will shrug off your silly characterization of my skills. Your continued misunderstanding of population genetics is indicative of your bias. You have selectively quoted the referenced article and ignored its actual meaning and conclusions.


Quote:
(03-01-2014 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Better understanding of what?

Of what I'm actually trying to show.

It is no longer clear to me what you are trying to show.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
03-01-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 10:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  I understand that post-modern assertion, however the text has intrinsic meaning and author intent.

I have to get back to work, but I would like to state absolutely and unequivocally that texts absolutely never have intrinsic meaning, and I defy anyone who disagrees to explain exactly how it does. It may have authorial intent, but in addition to the minuscule role that intent plays in the vast majority of interpretation, determining exactly what the intent is when you do not have direct access to the author is all but an absolute impossibility (and problematic even when you do have the author).

I would point out that your rhetorical marginalization of the observation as a "post-modern assertion" puts you on par---again---with the intellectual heritage of fundamentalist Christianity. Whatever your scientific background and training, you are obviously a beginner when it comes to linguistics and semantics.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 11:10 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 10:55 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 10:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  I understand that post-modern assertion, however the text has intrinsic meaning and author intent.

I have to get back to work, but I would like to state absolutely and unequivocally that texts absolutely never have intrinsic meaning, and I defy anyone who disagrees to explain exactly how it does. It may have authorial intent, but in addition to the minuscule role that intent plays in the vast majority of interpretation, determining exactly what the intent is when you do not have direct access to the author is all but an absolute impossibility (and problematic even when you do have the author).

Can you elaborate as I honestly find this point rather confusing. Without any intrinsic meaning, what do the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other religious texts bring to the table of any value. Texts of fiction require interpretation. So if it has no intrinsic meaning and needs a filter of individual reader interpretation, why pay attention and follow the writings? Furthermore, unless you belive the literal record of events concerning the gold plates and talking to angels, then again why follow to any degree?

“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, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 11:23 AM by Chas.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 10:55 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 10:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  I understand that post-modern assertion, however the text has intrinsic meaning and author intent.

I have to get back to work, but I would like to state absolutely and unequivocally that texts absolutely never have intrinsic meaning, and I defy anyone who disagrees to explain exactly how it does. It may have authorial intent, but in addition to the minuscule role that intent plays in the vast majority of interpretation, determining exactly what the intent is when you do not have direct access to the author is all but an absolute impossibility (and problematic even when you do have the author).

I would point out that your rhetorical marginalization of the observation as a "post-modern assertion" puts you on par---again---with the intellectual heritage of fundamentalist Christianity. Whatever your scientific background and training, you are obviously a beginner when it comes to linguistics and semantics.

If a text has no intrinsic meaning, then it doesn't matter whether I am reading a fifth-grader's book report or a scholarly dissertation.

We read the words as written and discern their meaning. While we will bring some understanding, ideas, and meanings with us, we cannot be the sole source of meaning.

That is why your idea is absurd.

Whatever your academic credentials, you have obviously fallen off a post-modern cliff into a meaningless abyss.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: