Genetics Vs Mormonism & Creationism

Trilairian said:
You have been scientifically proven wrong by the DNA evidence among other things.
Click to expand...

Not even close, sorry. If you think you can "disprove" the Book of Mormon, you don't know what you're up against. Have you ever even read it?
 
Marlin said:
Not even close, sorry. If you think you can "disprove" the Book of Mormon, you don't know what you're up against. Have you ever even read it?
Click to expand...
Yes I did disprove it. Contrary to your wishful version of the world, yes I have read it and I've read the entire bible and I've read a sizable portion of the Koran so far and I've read the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenents and the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and more science fact documents that prove such false than you've probably ever even heard of. Have you?
 
Book of Mormon - 4 to 5 times completely through; 1 year Seminary Study
New Testament - About 4 times completly through; 1 year Seminary Study
Old Testament - Just about done once through; 1 year Seminary Study
Doctrine & Covenants - Once through; 1 year Seminary Study
Koran - Scratched the surface

Perhaps the question shouldn't be, "Have you read it?" but rather, "Have you felt it, or are you past feeling?"
 
Marlin said:
Perhaps the question shouldn't be, "Have you read it?" but rather, "Have you felt it, or are you past feeling?"
Click to expand...
Your trying to satisfy your confirmation bias with this. If I say I don't feel it then in your mind I must be past feeling and therefor its my fault for not just ignoring all the imperical data as you do in favor of self delusion taken as devine revalation. Here in the real world when it comes to matters of fact feelings are irrelevent because you will have a tendency to feel whatever you want to believe to the point that your heart will lie to you. In matters of fact use your head not your heart if you don't want to be deceived. This is a matter of fact, whether the book of Mormon is Historically valid or not is not in any way a matter of the heart and the data which you should be using your head to process instead of your heart dissproved it.
 
Marlin said:
Genetics? So do you know the exact genetic makeup of Lehi, Sariah, Jared, Ishmael, Mulek?
Click to expand...
actually, if the BoM narrative is to be believed, yes, they were Israelish, if they came from any of the tribes of Israel, they would have Middle Eastern DNA (very distinct); so if from Judah, Dan or Benjamin, it makes no mind, because they would not be Asiatic from Siberia, which the DNA plainly proves

Do you claim to know the exact genetic makeup of all Native Americans on both American continents?
Click to expand...
shucks, starting from here,yes
http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560851813/103-2274275-1131040?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
http://americanindiandna.com/


dig deeper:
http://www.ericbarger.com/cgidna.htm
http://www.lhvm.org/arch/bband.htm
http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmnh/origin.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701509129_6/First_Americans.html
http://cita.chattanooga.org/mtdna.html
http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html

have fun
 
 
Marlin said:
You have fun, too:

Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon?
DNA and the Book of Mormon
Dr. Scott Woodward: DNA and the Book of Mormon
Is An Historical Book of Mormon Incompatible with DNA Science?
A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event"
The Tempest in a Teapot: DNA Studies and the Book of Mormon
The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History
A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist
Who Are the Children of Lehi?
Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity
Before DNA
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part I
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part II
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part III
DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective
Click to expand...
Those are nothing but the same kind of apologetic arguements given by any other Christian group. No amout of beating around the bush is going to change the fact that the DNA evidence beyond any reasonable doubt proved your religion wrong.
 
Trilairian said:
Those are nothing but the same kind of apologetic arguements given by any other Christian group. No amout of beating around the bush is going to change the fact that the DNA evidence beyond any reasonable doubt proved your religion wrong.
Click to expand...

I suppose you read all of them? That was quick, considering some of them are more than 80 pages long, and I just posted them a couple of hours ago.
 
To quote Jeff Lindsey from
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

Science frequently causes old assumptions to be revised or even discarded. For example, it was long an assumption in Christian circles that the earth was created in six 24-hour days. Then the scientific evidence became nearly overwhelming for an old earth whose biosphere changed and developed over a course of many millions of years before man appeared. Many Christians then had to revisit their old assumption, noticing that the Hebrew word translated as "day" in Genesis 1 can also mean "epoch" or "time." (Latter-day Saints had a head-start in this area, as one version of the Creation story recorded in the Book of Abraham, translated by Joseph Smith, speaks of the creation events not in terms of days, but times.) Scientific evidence has led many Christians to drop an old but popular assumption to replace it with a more reasonable assumption, with no need to discard faith in God. (See, for example, the approach of Dr. Hugh Ross at Reasons.org, a scientist who accepts Genesis and the concept of an old earth. I, like most of the scientists I know who are also Christian, believe that God's creation proceeded under His direction in logical steps, roughly as described in Genesis, over a long period of time.)

DNA evidence of human origins, which entered public consciousness with the work of Cann et al. (1987) and the "African mitochondrial Eve," has been shaking up many old assumptions. The science around DNA and its role in tracing human origins is a complex topic with many helpful basic treatments available online, such as "American Indian mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Data: A Comprehensive Report of their Use in Migration and Other Anthropological Studies" by Peter N. Jones (2004), made available by the International Institute for Indigenous Resource Management. We'll discuss the science in more detail below. For now, the main implication for the Book of Mormon is that a popular nineteenth-century assumption about the scope of the Book of Mormon made by many leaders and members of the Church is incorrect.

Many people, not knowing anything about the early settling of this continent outside of the migrations reported in the Book of Mormon, assumed that ALL Native Americans descended ONLY from the few small groups mentioned there. That assumption is wrong, to the best of our knowledge. The assumption that the Book of Mormon covered the entire hemisphere and explained all Native American origins is not supported by the text or by scientific evidence. It was not a matter of doctrine or anything affecting the core of our religion, but is an area of academic interest. Destroying that errant though understandable assumption with modern evidence does not destroy the Book of Mormon, but enhances our understanding of the details behind and helps clarify many issues in the text. The critics think they can destroy the LDS faith with DNA evidence, but all that is necessary is to revise and update an errant assumption--and keep learning!
Click to expand...
Emphasis added.
 
Last edited:
Marlin said:
To quote Jeff Lindsey from
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml
The assumption that the Book of Mormon covered the entire hemisphere and explained all Native American origins is not supported by the text
Click to expand...
not true, the text says that the land was empty
or by scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
since when did LDS ever use that?
It was not a matter of doctrine or anything affecting the core of our religion,
Click to expand...
actually, its at the core of your religion for 3 reasons:
1) never does the BoM mention the people round about, it is silent about the Native Peoples because J. Smith knew nothing of their origins (using fictitious Lamanites, Jareites, Mulikites & Nephites instead)
2) if J. Smith's BoM was true, it would mention Native Peoples, either in conflict with, marriage to, trade, war, religion; the Bible mentions all the people round about, under those circumstances; the silence is deafening
3) LDS missionaries have been using it to try to convert Native Peoples & Polynesians to good effect
 
WildBlueYonder said:
not true, the text says that the land was empty
Click to expand...

Give me chapter and verse for that, please.

since when did LDS ever use that?
Click to expand...

You've obviously never heard of BYU.

actually, its at the core of your religion for 3 reasons:
1) never does the BoM mention the people round about, it is silent about the Native Peoples because J. Smith knew nothing of their origins (using fictitious Lamanites, Jareites, Mulikites & Nephites instead)
Click to expand...

The core of our religion is Jesus Christ, to which all other doctrines are corollaries.

2) if J. Smith's BoM was true, it would mention Native Peoples, either in conflict with, marriage to, trade, war, religion; the Bible mentions all the people round about, under those circumstances; the silence is deafening
Click to expand...

Amazing, coming from someone who has never even read the book and refuses to do so! Actually, Nephi was commanded to only touch on the history of his people as far as necessary, because the plates were meant to be sacred truth, not a history book. The complete history of the Lehites is on other plates somewhere, buried.
3) LDS missionaries have been using it to try to convert Native Peoples & Polynesians to good effect
Click to expand...

As I quoted Jeff Lindsay as saying, we had an erroneous belief, DNA science came along and modified that belief, and we modified our world view regarding the Book of Mormon accordingly.

The core of Mormonism is and always has been Jesus Christ and His gospel and Atonement. You can say that we don't believe that, but we do. We get tired of having people tell us what we believe, when we don't believe what they think we do. Christ is at the center of our worship services, our scriptures, and our lives.
 
let me put my 2 cents in. i was raised in a religious household, as a matter of fact my grandfather was about 2 fruitloops short of fanatic. he called television the work of the devil and was evil reincarnate. practically everything that man didn't understand was truely evil. now about religion,i have not seen any evidence not one shred that leads me to believe that there is an all powerfull force that controls everything, on the other hand evolution can't possibly explain the great diversity of life on this planet. therefore i believe that BOTH THEORIES ARE WRONG. instead of wrangeling aruond evolution or religion maybe we should come up with another option. what if time had no begining and life itself was always here in the universe somewhere?
 
Tril says
"there is no genetic connection between the American Indians and the Israelites, but instead the genetics demonstrates that they are descendents of multiple waves of migrating Asian ancestors"

There is evidence in the book of mormon that they sailed from the americas WEST towards asia... this could also be a reason why asians show a genetic relation to the Israelites that populated the americas.

"And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward."

"And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward."

The book of Mormon is TRUE-----read it while you have the opportunity too.
 
Marlin said:
Give me chapter and verse for that, please.

Amazing, coming from someone who has never even read the book and refuses to do so! Actually, Nephi was commanded to only touch on the history of his people as far as necessary, because the plates were meant to be sacred truth, not a history book.
Click to expand...
For shame, for shame, that me, a non-mormon would know more about the BoM than you? Or were you hoping that my lack of reading the entirety of the BoM would hide the truth from others? Google to the rescue!

Try 2 Nephi Chapter 1: verses 3 through 9.

And I’m not the first to grapple with this problem
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=141
Views of Book of Mormon history and geography imply possible definitions for Book of Mormon populations. According to the traditional hemispheric interpretation, the American continents were empty of people when Jared's party arrived. When the Jaredites self-destructed, Lehi's and Mulek's recent immigrant groups were left to repopulate the land. This implies that all pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas, including all of the populations of the Olmec, Maya, Inca, Aztec, and other North and South American native populations, and their descendants down to modern times, grew from one or more of the three Book of Mormon migrations. In considering this traditional view, B. H. Roberts noted how it implies "an empty America three thousand years B.C. . . . into which a colony may come."25 After the Jaredites arrived, grew to large numbers, and then became extinct, the traditional view implies "American continents again without human inhabitants," following which "into these second time empty American continents—empty of human population—we want the evidence of the coming of two small colonies about 600 BC, which shall be the ancestors of all native American races as we know them."26Recognizing the difficulties in this, Roberts asked "how shall we answer the questions that arise from the considerations of American archaeology? Can we successfully overturn the evidences presented by archaeologists for the great antiquity of man in America, and his continuous occupancy of it? . . . Can we successfully maintain the Book of Mormon's comparatively recent advent of man in America?"27
Click to expand...
 
Marlin said:
You've obviously never heard of BYU.
Click to expand...
you're serious? aren't you? when push comes to shove, BYU would send obstacrators like you, to try & confuse the issues

Oh, BTW, while I was at the LACMA "Egyptian exhibit", I bought me a handy-dandy, hieroglyphic decoder for about $3.99. I now know more Egyptian than J. Smith ever did.

:D hehehehe
 
WildBlueYonder said:
For shame, for shame, that me, a non-mormon would know more about the BoM than you? Or were you hoping that my lack of reading the entirety of the BoM would hide the truth from others? Google to the rescue!

Try 2 Nephi Chapter 1: verses 3 through 9.

And I’m not the first to grapple with this problem
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=141
Click to expand...

I was just curious where you were getting the idea that the land was empty, that's all. Nothing to put you down or "hide the truth." The truth is not afraid to defend itself--no need to hide it. Now let's have a look at what 2 Nephi 1:3-9 actually says:

1. The land of America should be an inheritance for Lehi's seed, AND for those the Lord led out from other countries.
2. No one shall come to the land unless they are led by the Lord.
3. The knowledge of the existence of this land will be kept from other nations, because they would overrun it if they knew of it.
4. If the Lehites should keep the commandments, they shall be kept from all other nations. But if they don't keep the commandments, other nations will scatter them.

From the above, we can safely infer that if there were others besides the Book of Mormon peoples, they must have been led by the hand of the Lord to get here. This passage of scripture does not say that the land was empty when the Lehites and Jaredites got there.
 
WildBlueYonder said:
Marlin said:
You've obviously never heard of BYU.
Click to expand...

you're serious? aren't you? when push comes to shove, BYU would send obstacrators like you, to try & confuse the issues
Click to expand...

BYU would never send me anywhere--I dropped out after my first year there. But let me tell you, BYU science courses are rigorous and very difficult to pass. I took Chemistry and found it to be so hard that I only got a C-, and that was *after* working my butt off. Similarly, biology (which also taught evolution, genetics, and anthropology) was very, very hard and very savvy about the current scientific advances. BYU has very rigorous, up-to-date and modern courses of science. So hard that I dropped out!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top