[Godzilla]

Indians say it was here before them, and you think Hibben forged it....

That is the heresy DU, the site was uncontrolled and no official investigation has been made. Once again, the Nibster identified it as a fraud. Noting that you have also failed to source this so called rubbing that predates things as well which is alledgedly being held on to by the Smithsonian. . . . . .

Please drop the "Guilt by association fallacy".

The documentation and control of the site are highly questionable – your heresy evidence only points to writings in the area. Some one ‘said’. Interesting that no investigation followed up – guess they agreed with Nib’s assertion – which is still LDS/FARMS interpretation.

Please explain you specific objections to the Decalogue stone, and why it's related to Hibben being there.

Hibben improperly (some say fraudulently) presented data on the Scanda Cave as well as clearly falsified another site in Canada IIRC. It shows that he is capable of misrepresenting data to suit his own goals. Secondly, since you argue for it, Paleo-Hebrew may not have been known, but Phoenician script was known at the time, thus not precluding fraud. That along with the inclusion of clearly greek symbols (I see you added a chart, how nice), Greek Theta instead of Daleth; Greek Zeta instead of Zayin; Greek Kappa instead of Kaph and Tau instead of Taw. That combined with modern Hebrew punctuation, spelling and stylistic differences. Now whether or not you want to acknowledge these facts regarding the stone will only point to whether or not you choose to exclude it a priori.

As to the "Straw man" assertion, no, there are collateral carvings, including a carving over what is probably an alter that have the Tetragrammaton carved over it.

Again, this was not a controlled site and saying unproven things like an altar is only speculation on your part, not backed up by facts

There is no evidence that Hibben even knew that was there (it's also in Paleo Hebrew).

There is also no evidence that he did either, but Phoenician was known at the time, and that is the language most of your links in the past have attributed it to, not to Hebrews.

There are the ancient fortifications on top of the mesa that appear to date from the same period. (You keep saying there aren't any, so I thought I'd point this out)

LOL, oh Du, going into the twilight zone now. First you try to put words into my mouth You keep saying there aren't any when that aspect of the discussion hasn’t come up yet – getting a head of yourself. How do you know they are from the same period. Have archaeologist gone out there and excavated to show that those holes and rock piles actually constitute fortifications LOL! The old "I know something you don't know" debate tactic, I remember that... from third grade...

Well, since you didn’t respond with the answer, it is clear that I was correct. You are unable to stray off your depleted story line to address issues out side of it. Sad

The stone exists, it is of ancient manufacture,

On the basis of what proof, hearsay evidence. How do you manufacture a stone DU, LOL. Evidence exists that it is a fraud, just like Nib said, or do you not like to deal with evidence contrary to your sacred cow.

it has the Ten Commandments on it, and there are unaltered inscriptions of paleo Hebrew nearby. Disbelieve all you want, but the "no evidence" claim just died.

If you had read your articles, you would have seen that it was an abridgement, not the full citation. Secondly, there are plenty of other evidences that this stone is fraudulent, some already posted here. Ancient proto-Hebrew did not use Greek Characters DU – that is a not so subtle clue right off the bat. As far as unaltered other inscription – again the burden of proof is in your corner. What level of control to the site has there been since 1930? Prove via archaelogical journal that these writings are unaltered as you claim. There goes you unimpeachable evidence once again.

Who said Mormons don't need faith? Reading comprehension problems?

Well, I guess you have your name in for one of those Nephi bom land tours then (I hear they are unreal).

The church also has a Center in Jerusalem, has tours over there and spends money on research there, is it your contention that we do that to prove the Bible true?

Don’t need mormons to prove the bible true, you are newcommers to the game. But that is a change in policy – mormons historically have dissed the bible inspite of paying lip service to it.

I will state that we already know the Book of Mormon is God's word. (God tells us so)

Circular logic to the max. bom claims it is true tells you to read it and pray and if you get a subjective warm fuzzy its true.

Actually, I read an article somewhere that said He only had photographs in which the wire brush marks were clearly visible. I can't seem to find that article again though :-( That memory is what my statement was based on, it was not a lie.

Then clearly state so. However, still doesn’t answer the question, Nib would / should have had access to the rubbing if it existed. More hearsay

Yes I know of the “geologist’s” estimate, but that is only a WAG and not anything I would bet my professional credential on.
Why not? You go out on slimmer limbs here...

Because, unlike you, I have a far greater understanding of those variables involved and such a WAG doesn’t stand the test today. Since you cannot prove the ‘dates’ otherwise – there are no studies of the sort at the site – you just have more unsubstantied claims.

Did you or did you not hear the native talking about Nahom? Now he does not pronounce it quite the way I do, but it would have had the same vowels. If you did not get this, go listen again.

As pointed out earlier, the insertion of vowels is not proof, as there are 25 different combinations. It sounded like Nihm. If the consonants "NHM" are pronounced as written, it should be pronounced with the H as hard, not soft (this is what we find in "nahom" to be sorry"). So the sound would be like "ch" as in Scottish "loch" and we should expect it to have been pronounced Nachom, not "Nahom." The Book of Mormon placename doesn't fit the Hebrew word "to be sorry". The location of Nahom is nothing more than shooting arrows, then drawing the target.

Le's see, the markings on the Decalogue stone are if translated as Hebrew the Ten Commandments Lessee, a stone that the lead and quasi authorative mormon apologists and archeologists of mormonism have declared as a fraud.

Naholm exists where it's supposed to be, Bountiful exists where it's supposed to be

From a book so generic that just about any place could match the description. ”. The location of Nahom is nothing more than shooting arrows, then drawing the target. But that begs the point – if they are valid, there should be millions times more artifacts here in America, not some highly debated (and unauthenticated by proper scientists) stones. Still want to see evidence that bountiful could supply the proper timber for an oceanic vessel as well as iron.

there is evidence of Horses in the ancient Americas.

This is twice you’ve made this claim. I’ve already shot down one, where are your documented sources that there were horses during the bom era? Or were they deer or tapirs as Sorensen et.al. try to claim. Provide citation or withdraw the claim.

The evidence supporting the Book of Mormon just keeps mounting, . . . Book of Mormon, being confirmed? is a good example of this.

Wow a powerpoint presentation with no documentation to support, that is just overwhelming. I can see the gentiles now just banging at the gates wanting in, scientists by the gadzillions throwing down their work Yerp, the Video was produced I think a couple of years after he joined the church..

And you claim I don’t watch these things.

Thus your argument that Keith misrepresented the data, must include the report he wrote before he Joined the church.

Where in the non-mormon world is this report.

Keith's position is consistent, does not support your interpretation of the same data, his credentials are impeccable, you got the genetics of two brothers confused.

Consistent, perhaps, but consistently wrong. Crandall diverted the focus, thus losing the forest because of the trees. More recent studies make it very clear, the haplogroup X that Crandall reported detected is not related by subgroup to that of Hebrews. And the trouble starts right at your own home supporting this

While interesting, at present it does not seem that Haplotype X can serve as good evidence of Book or Mormon antiquity given the problems of dating and the failure of the model to come to grips with textual issues from the Book of Mormon. It also fails to interact responsibly with a fairly large body of literature which has led most LDS scholars to place the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, not the Great Lakes region. . However, since a wiki site is not always a source of accurate information (though this is a pro-mormon site), I opted to go to source documentation.

And fresh off of the presses mormon Scott R. Woodward former scientific director of the Molecular Genealogy project at BYU and DNA expert now head of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, (as well as other mormons associated with the foundation) along with other researchers reported - in an article published in 13 January 2009 issue of Current Biology (volume 19 issue 1) stated Haplogroup D4h3 spread into the Americas along the Pacific coast, whereas X2a entered through the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. The examination of an additional 276 entire mtDNA sequences provides similar entry times for all common Native American haplogroups, thus indicating at least a dual origin for Paleo-Indians. This was published with the full force and weight of the mormon Sorensen lab behind it.

Now read take a minute and read it slowly DU, as it seems you are unfamiliar with scientific writing. This article confirms what I and even Southerton (as well as others) have been saying all along, the X haplotypes touted by Crandall as evidence of hebrews genetics are not those from Hebrews – period. It accounts for its presence in the same fashion DNA researchers have already been, so no cries of ignoring data (unlike you do for the los lunas fraud). Science has spoken to those ignored data, and found that mormonism claims to them are once again false.

Is it now your contention that Joseph Smith in the 1830's wrote a book with the express purpose of fooling a geneticist in the future when it's extremely doubtful Joseph Smith even knew what Genetics would be.

No, it is his 3d grade education showing through. And being such a poor (non) prophet, he couldn’t (didn’t) foresee that his fraud would be uncovered scientifically. Science speaks again in the November 2003 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics states 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.. Since this is a 2003 report, Crandall had this data, yet he ignored it (GASP, imagine that!). Isn’t that what you claimed researchers did – ignore data? This just further shows that he mis-represented the 2005 Rosenburg study.

Book of Mormon anticipates modern Mesoamerican archeology.

Drinking the koolaid again. From the Smithsonian, their standard answer.

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonian's position is contained in the enclosed "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.
Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonian's name. Please address any correspondence to:

Anthropology Outreach Office
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History MRC 112
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560


PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
This includes the Los Lunas fraud
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

So much for the bom predicting central American cultures

(From 'The Ensign' magazine, September, 1984, pg. 33) A prime example of a topic on which expert views have changed drastically to be more in agreement with the Book of Mormon is armed conflict.

And so where are the artifacts Du, swords, armor, chariots, steel bows, helmets – the markers of an civilization with advanced metallurgy? The mormon archaeologists says . . . . (crickets). Mayans dominated the region selected for the LGT, yet no mention or influence from a Hebraic culture with advanced technology has ever been encountered. (more crickets)

For your Problems, Bacteria from ancient poop? How low can you go? (Just had to have fun with it.) But so?

You have been arguing only one facet of DNA studies – mtDNA, as I have several times now pointed out, other DNA methodologies have been investigated (including Y chromosome, and Polymorphic Alu insertions) used to study the origins of native americans. You must be very blissful in your ignorance. Let your apologists spin away these other studies. Now regarding coprolites (proper termonlogy for ancient poop), the study I cited had nothing to do with that, here is an example of what I was refering to -

Helicobacter pylori, a chronic gastric pathogen of human beings, can be found in virtually every human population group. Variations of the bacteria can be divided into seven populations and subpopulations with distinct geographical distributions. Analysis of these bacteria within native populations worldwide reveals that the East Asian strain of Helicobacter pylori can be isolated from Native Americans, indicating that East Asians are the likely ancestor of Native Americans. (Falush D, Wirth T, Linz B, Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Kidd M, Blaser MJ, Graham DY, Vacher S, Perez-Perez GI, Yamaoka Y, Megraud F, Otto K, Reichard U, Katzowitsch E, Wang X, Achtman M, Suerbaum S. 2003. Traces of human migrations in Helicobacter pylori populations. Science 299: 1528-1529.)

However, since it seems you have a fixation with Coprolites, they further support the migration from Siberia – not Israel.

That doesn’t even begin to evaluate Y chromosomal data (the x haplogroup is mtDNA), retroviral DNA studies and more – all come to the same conclusion, native Americans came from Asia, not the middle east area of Israel. Multiple lines of evidence, multiple disciplines all converging on the same answer – apply Occam’s razor liberally DU.

This does not interest me because A) It's poop and B) even if true, it has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. kind of like who discovered an artifact that could not have been forged, does not matter to me nearly as much as the artifact.

An act of dismissal a priori DU, poor form. Already outlined above as another independent DNA test. And coprolites also show the myth of hebrew origins of native americans remain just that – a myth.

You mentioned dogs, sorry, missed that, so? I like dogs is that a problem?

You display a great deal of ignorance on the DNA studies outside of the very limited apologetic by Crandall (and now discredited by a mormon genetic research institute) on mtDNA Haplogroup X. Genetic studies of dogs also show migration with humans via Siberia. How is your bom guide book at predicting that?

The Book of Mormon talks about people who were here before them, really you need to read the Book of Mormon before you cut yourself again on that Occam's razor you keep swinging about. Maybe you should stick to using an electric razor...

The Jaredites are whom you are refering to, a nation that underwent a devastating war, which completely erased their civilization. According to the Book of Mormon introduction, “The other [Jaredites] came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed... There is one possible exception, being one of the leaders, Coriantumr. According to the Book of Ether, introduction to the 15th chapter, “The Jaredite nation is utterly destroyed—Only Coriantumr remains”

Another group is the Mulekites, from the Book of Omni. The Mulekites had come out of Jerusalem at the time of the Jewish captivity by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. However, since these people were also of Jewish origin, they would be expected to express Jewish genetics.

Therefore, the bom does not talk about others. The mayan culture of the era totally encompased the LGT target area – yet silence on any interactions with them.

GZ: Hey book of Mormon guy – Laman was a son of Lehi even as Nephi was, therefore the genetics were not wiped out. This view has been carried forward to this very day by mormom missionaries to the native Americans, central and south Americans. Um, again with the colossal ignorance about genetics thing? Descendant does not mean pure genetics. . . .

Genetic studies do not need pure genetics – even Crandall will acknowledge that I’m sure. A genetics lecture from one who can only parrot FARMS/FAIR haplogroup X results that have already been disproven by mormon genetic researchers (as well as dozens of others) Lamanites and Mulekites were of jewish origin, therefore they would have continued the jewish genetics – isn’t that exactly what you are trying to claim via Crandall LOL. Putting words in my mouth are meaningless when you do not even grasp the breadth of the various DNA studies brought to bear. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge either just show the dishonest depth that mormon apologetics will stoop to obfuscate the issue.

I'll say it again "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Genetics is a dry hole for anti Mormons, please keep digging your hole deeper! LOL!

Hardly, DU, as stated above, Crandall’s arguments have been refuted HERE,. You are a one note Johnny DUh, mtDNA haplogroup X as evidence of Nephite / Lamanite colonization of the new world is now proven to represent something else – and endorsed by the Sorsenson Foundation. Mormon apologetics is still silent on Y chromosomal results, as well as the many other avenues of investigation.

As proven by Keith Crandall, Et Al.

Then Mr. Crandell needs to get up to date on the current evidence, perhaps he needs to talk to his collegue Mr. Woodward, who, along with others at this mormon genetic institute, addressed the whole X haplotype issue (didn’t hide it like you claim), and showed that the detections in the americas were not associated with Semitic peoples from the area around Israel.

You just can't quote them and escape the fact that Keith Crandall was on the case and he has joined the church, why if it was such an egregious, obvious, amateurish faux pas of genetic bumbling did he do that?

I cannot answer why he would do such a foolish thing. Yet he did misrepresent the data, as well as while doing so ignored data that explained the presence of that haplotype in 2003 . Maybe, just maybe, Keith knows a bit more than you do about genetics (in fact, I'd bet good money on that) and he thinks your objections are unfounded.

Oh I don’t doubt that. However, I seem to be the one in this discussion who is bringing up primary research material that has no dog in this fight. As a scientist myself, I can read and grasp the fundamentals being presented. Those studies all show population of the americas from asia, and now, even more clearly and endorsed by the Sorenson Foundation, the mtDNA X questions have been cleared up. So it is a dead issue, and Crandall found wrong. Again, One Note Johnny, the spectrum of methodologies (multiple DNA related studies) and disciplines (archeology, anthropology and linguistics) have produced an abundance of data regarding the origions of man in the americas, they all deny the bom presentation that the native americans are descendants of hebrew lamanites.

You mean this guy?
At the time, his work concerned church involvement with plural marriage after the 1890 Manifesto, in which the practice was officially renounced.

Ah, rejection of your church history, Lalalalalalala, not listening are you. Didn’t project your church and its prophets in the proper enlightened and deified manner because the facts said otherwise

So a Gay Professor at the university got hung up on polygamy in the early church and got himself canned and excommunicated for writing salacious materials and identifying himself as a professor at a church owned collage, How dare they! LOL!

My my, du such bigotry. Instead of dealing with the facts he presented about mormon history, you find it easier to try to smear the character of the individual. As much as I disagree with homosexuality, one must deal with the facts of the presentation. Classical Fallacy - Ad Hominem attack. Lurkers here can plainly see the shallowness of you apologetics to the subject, nor doe it deny the fact that when he published material not pleasing to the church (because he didn’t candy coat it). The mormon church did the same to Fanny Alger – they didn’t maintain a faithful history He sounds like a typical anti Mormon doing his target practice, LOL!

You just posted that he still considered mormonism to be the way, he only disagreed with policies and some doctrines – fancy that. Quinn was part of five other prominent intellectuals and dissidents, most of them in the employ of Brigham Young University, were excommunicated . I’m sure DU will find other sexual innuendos with which to tag them with as well.

Now, can we get back to the focus of this thread, there is no way to disprove the Book of Mormon with DNA...

I thought you’ve been saying that Crandall had proved the bom via DNA. Are you that confused on the subject, especially when you get off the story line? Crandall’s proofs are now moot, directly contradicted by mormons and the mormon Sorenson institute as well as others. As a fraud now revealed in the light of todays science, mormon doctrine itself claims that lamanites founded the american indians

a) D&C 3:20
b) D&C 10:48
c) D&C 19:27
d) D&C 28:8-9,14
e) D&C 30:6
f) D&C 32:2
g) D&C 49:24
h) D&C 54:8
i) D&C 57:4 (See also the heading info for this section, which provides contextual expansion.)
j) D&C 101:70-71
k) D&C 109:65-66.

The footnotes of the editions of the Book of Mormon from 1876-1921 indicate Lehi & company landed in Chile; the description of Helaman 3:8 is explicated in the [officially sanctioned] footnotes in editions of the Book of Mormon from 1880-1920: "And it came to pass that they [the Nephites] did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land [g] southward to the land [h] northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea [i] south, to the sea [j] north, from the sea [k] west, to the sea [l] east." The footnotes provide the following identifications of these lands and bodies of water: "g, South America. h, North America. i, Atlantic, south of Cape Horn. j, Arctic, north of North America. k, Pacific. l, Atlantic.". The bom predicts that the genetic make up of indians should be hebraic. DNA data of all types indicates that this is false. Remember DU absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is an argumentum ex silentio - a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. However, there is no lack of contrary evidence, as has been well documented (and I’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg) there is an exceeding abundance of contrary evidence. Since you fail to provide the burden of proof in this matter DU, yours is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Your daily diet of FARMS has dulled your occam’s razor DU.

[ejonesie22]

Outstanding and substantial reply.

A few things stick out in my mind, a couple we have touched on before. First that whole idea of both independent scientific scholarship both in the DNA area and IMHO more importantly the archaeological record.

I once had a scientist friend, a Christian individual, who said something to the effect of “I thank God for the Atheist in the science community, they help prove his (God's)truths more than most.” And there is great merit in that. Independent archaeologist have found many of the ruins that substantiate the places and facts of Christ's life even above and beyond simple oral tradition. Jewish researchers found the corner stone of Herod's palace a few years for example.

Good Scholarship stands up to scrutiny far beyond that of ones allies or philosophical peers.

And were is the oral tradition that tells the stories of these very significant Mesoamerican cultures, there is no rational way they would have passed unnoticed or had just as mild passing influence at best on those around them. As you so succinctly put it, where are the artifacts? I think I was told once that the ruins are gone due to the climate here. Well the harshest climate in the new world is Central American and yet the ruins of the Incas and Mayans still stand testament to their existence. Arrow heads and stone tools litter many areas of the continent and date back from almost any given time in the history of man in this hemisphere. And yet nothing remains of the people in the BOM. Oh we have some antiquities theft here and there, claims by LDS “archaeologist” of artifacts that were made by others as being “authentic” proof of the Mormon story. Of course as Indian Jones would say, antiquities theft is a bad thing. So is stealing another cultures thunder in my book.

The Smithsonian letter speaks volumes in this regard as well.

I was also struck by the argument about the native Americans using the word “Nahom”. Why when I read that do I equate that with the idea of assuming because the Russians tend to say “net” very often they are passionate fishermen.

One last thing, I love the pointing out of Scott Woodward and others work that has just been published. Nothing like have your definitive science dismissed by your own scientist.

oops...

Again, just a few musings, again a very well done and competent piece by you. The reasoned will be impressed and dare i say swayed. those for whom this puts the light even brighter on the lie will be equally dismissive and work harder to cover their deception...

[DelphiUser]

That is the heresy DU, the site was uncontrolled and no official investigation has been made.

Did you mean heresy or hearsay?

Once again, the Nibster identified it as a fraud.

Tell you what, you admit that Hugh Nibley was always right, and I'll go with your interpretation... I didn't think you would go with that. Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to insist that he was wrong on many other things, and insist that I say he was right on this one? Now I for example have never said he was right about everything, so I'm clean on the hypocrisy issue. I think he was wrong about this one and I think I know why.

Noting that you have also failed to source this so called rubbing that predates things as well which is alledgedly being held on to by the Smithsonian. . . . . .

So? how many things have you actually source on this thread (pot ... Kettle...)

The documentation and control of the site are highly questionable – your heresy evidence only points to writings in the area. Some one ‘said’. Interesting that no investigation followed up – guess they agreed with Nib’s assertion – which is still LDS/FARMS interpretation.

You know that the Los lunas stone is only one of many places htat paleo hebrew has been found in the Americas. I am not going to give up on this as an "evidence" There are many "evidences" of the Book of Mormon, are they conclusive proof? No. Will they convince scientists to sing Joseph smith's praises? Don't make me laugh, no really, I have a Cold and I'll start coughing again, don't make me laugh.

You said that was no evidence, there is, it's not "mainstream" or the Book of Mormon would be "mainstream". But the evidence exists, if that is what you are looking for. If you are looking for evidence against, you can find that too.

"Sometimes what you find on the table is what you brought with you" -- Chinese Proverb

DU: Please explain you specific objections to the Decalogue stone, and why it's related to Hibben being there. GZ: Hibben improperly (some say fraudulently) presented data on the Scanda Cave as well as clearly falsified another site in Canada IIRC. It shows that he is capable of misrepresenting data to suit his own goals. Secondly, since you argue for it, Paleo-Hebrew may not have been known, but Phoenician script was known at the time, thus not precluding fraud. That along with the inclusion of clearly greek symbols (I see you added a chart, how nice), Greek Theta instead of Daleth; Greek Zeta instead of Zayin; Greek Kappa instead of Kaph and Tau instead of Taw. That combined with modern Hebrew punctuation, spelling and stylistic differences. Now whether or not you want to acknowledge these facts regarding the stone will only point to whether or not you choose to exclude it a priori.

Lets see, I asked about your specific objections to the Decalogue stone:

1. You talk about a cave
2. You talk about a site in Canada
3. You judge his morality
4. You argue that it's possible that he might have known phonecian script
5. You complain about Greek symbols on the Decalogue stone (finally we get to the stone in question)
6. You complain about modern Hebrew punctuation (the dots between words I assume)
7. You call your suppositions facts

So you finally have two objections that are not just smoke and mirrors, the dots to separate words have been found in other period documents you might want to review The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon. Let me give you a quote from this as an opener:

The Lachish letters were written on potsherds just before the Babylonians came and destroyed Jerusalem around 600 B.C. They were discovered in 1938 by J.L. Starkey. These letters are an excellent control text for the opening scenes of the BofM. They have been virtually ignored by critics since their contribution to the BofM's authenticity is some of the most *powerful* available. It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.

please note the Lachish letters also speak of a prophet of God who was sought by the military having left his home and fled into the wilderness (sound familiar? It should)

GZ: Again, this was not a controlled site and saying unproven things like an altar is only speculation on your part, not backed up by facts

A) I said Probably and alter (the speculation was clear) B) The pyramids are not a "controlled site" and you don't seem to deny they exist. What is it Anti Mormons wanting "controlled sites" and "per reviews" all the time? Life is messy.

DU: There is no evidence that Hibben even knew that was there (it's also in Paleo Hebrew).

GZ: There is also no evidence that he did either, but Phoenician was known at the time, and that is the language most of your links in the past have attributed it to, not to Hebrews.
That's what I said, there is no evidence that he did... Wait, you agreed with me in an argumentative fashion,that means you left out the word not, got it... Proof read man proof read!

Please explain why when it's read in Hebrew (palo of course) it's the ten commandments...

DU There are the ancient fortifications on top of the mesa that appear to date from the same period. (You keep saying there aren't any, so I thought I'd point this out)

GZ LOL, oh Du, going into the twilight zone now. First you try to put words into my mouth You keep saying there aren't any when that aspect of the discussion hasn’t come up yet – getting a head of yourself.

Sorry, I've had this conversation so many times, I'm sorry, I'll wait for you to say your part next time... Don't get angry, nobody likes a sulky debater.

GZ How do you know they are from the same period. Have archaeologist gone out there and excavated to show that those holes and rock piles actually constitute fortifications

Because the people examining the site said they "appeared to be from the same period" I have not actually seen the sit myself, you?

DU LOL! The old "I know something you don't know" debate tactic, I remember that... from third grade...

GZ Well, since you didn’t respond with the answer, it is clear that I was correct. You are unable to stray off your depleted story line to address issues out side of it. Sad

Wait, Wait! Was this the part where I hold an envelope up to my forehead and tell you what you are thinking?

Silly Rabbit mind reading tricks are forbidden on the forums. If you want to see if I know something, you are going to have to ask me.

DU The stone exists, it is of ancient manufacture,

GZ On the basis of what proof, hearsay evidence. How do you manufacture a stone DU, LOL. Evidence exists that it is a fraud, just like Nib said, or do you not like to deal with evidence contrary to your sacred cow.

Hugh Nibley is not God. I think he's wrong. Hibben was not there long enough to have refaced and re-carved the stone, he did some really stupid things, but he just didn't have time to forge the inscription.

let's get a bit of information about the site:
From Some background information on the history of the Inscription Rock

People were already aware of the inscription when New Mexico became a territory in 1850, but no one could read it back then, mainly because the old-Hebrew or Phoenician alphabet in which this rock is inscribed was mostly unknown among scholars or archaeologists at that time. The site is located some few miles west of the small New Mexican town of Los Lunas, about an hour's car drive south of Albuquerque. The inscription is carved into the flat face of a large boulder resting on the north-eastern side of the so-called Hidden Mountain. Local Indians told the then landowner Franz Huning in 1871 that the monument predated their tribes coming to the area.

So we have Indians having come to the area and finding the rock there, we have the Indians telling Franz Huning about it in 1871 and according to one story I read, Franz took a rubbing and sent it to the Smithsonian, the link I had is no longer working, and I am unable to find another source, so... Either which way he knew about it and owned the land, so that places a definitive date for the rock's carving to exist then, if not before (since the Indians claimed it was there before they came to the area.

And Godlike productions has the following on it's site:

I hope you all find this as fascinating and intriguing as I do. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of these ancient rock writings-hebrew inscriptions- in the deserts and mountains of our beautiful country. This new website has just begun....much, much more is coming and more photographs will be added as they are discovered.

Sadly anti Mormons who think there is something there have also been at work:

The Decalogue stone was found on the land of the great Huning family, descendants of the successful merchant Franz Huning.

Franz had emigrated to New Mexico from Germany in 1849. He worked as a cowboy along the Santa Fe Trail until he settled in Albuquerque.

In 1880, the same year the railroad arrived, Franz Huning invested in real estate (gaining a land grant which included the "Mystery Mtn." and environs, after inquiring with the land office a dusty cowpoke having been shown the "Mystery Stone" by a local tribesman while with the RR nearby who said it pre-dated the arrival of the tribes here) and he operated a flour mill while starting his Highland Addition east of the railroad between Copper and Lead in addition to his downtown mercantile store, becoming a very wealthy man. He lived in a mansion on a street named after himself in an eccentric miniature castle like the ones he left behind in Germany.

The Huning Ranch lands sign is the first thing you see headin outa town West, and his family's restaurants are well known.
When his Grandson first saw the stone in 1930 as he reported later at a very old age; "It was 2/3rds covered in Lichen and half buried in a drift of concreted dirt"

The first 2 millenia or so were "great" to it, the next 2 centuries were "good" (just not much recognition) then the last 2 decades saw it's exposure by the media and it was "fair" (getting well noticed by a few scholarlies removing a few pieces and at least by several writers and fringe), but the last 2 years have been dis-satisfactorily "poor" as it has been struck a repeated blow by vandalism.

What you see is having been covered in roofing Tar and scrubbed with solvent using wire-brushes, and been bashed badly with a pick-axe.

Some anti Mormons don't fall ideologically far from Mark Hoffman, who not content to disbelieve, or tell others why he disbelieved, started forging documents to discredit the church (some of which are still in circulation) when his "scheme" started to go bad, he started blowing people up with car bombs to slow the investigation. That ended when one of his bombs went off prematurely. Unfortunately, in religious wars as with normal war, truth is often the first casualty. In this case someone doesn't want the stone to be identified as Hebrew so badly they are willing to destroy it as if that will change the truth.

If you had read your articles, you would have seen that it was an abridgment, not the full citation.

An abridgment almost identical to the one on the Tel Dan Stone? ROTFLOL! Right,I almost forgot to add in that support, thanks!

Secondly, there are plenty of other evidences that this stone is fraudulent, some already posted here.
There is plenty of evidence against many true things if you look hard enough, so?

Ancient proto-Hebrew did not use Greek Characters DU – that is a not so subtle clue right off the bat.

32 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.
33 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.
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

If it was perfect Hebrew, it would support the Book of Momron even less. Hebrew Scholars think it is almost blasphemy for someone to alter the spelling of the law, but if that was how you wrote everything... Even the flaws back it up.

Is it possible Godzilla, that Hugh Nibley realizing that the stone weighing 80 tons (and therefore unmovable to a museum)) would be a target if he "authenticated" it? As it has gained in notoriety, it has been vandalized...

As far as unaltered other inscription – again the burden of proof is in your corner. I know you'd like to think that, but I have no intention of proving anything to you "beyond a shadow of a doubt", you are the prosecuting attorney here, I am merely the defense. I have testified that I received a witness from God, but putting the Book of Mormon to The Test. You claim I am wrong, and are supposed to be proving me wrong. You said I had not a shred of evidence to back me up. I don't need to prove my case I merely need to make others curious enough to ask God, for that is my purpose. Prove the church wrong if you can, but only God can prove it true. Lurkers, Read my Testimonay, Put the Church to The Test, Know for yourselves and all this petty bickering will not matter to you, I so testify in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost.

What level of control to the site has there been since 1930? Prove via archaeological journal that these writings are unaltered as you claim. There goes you unimpeachable evidence once again.

The only unimpeachable evidence in this world comes from God.

Again, I never thought I could convince you, I am presenting what there is, your acceptance, or rejection is not my problem. There are other stones, I chose to talk about this one, The DNA (which is what this htread is supposed to be about remember?) has not worked out for you because the Book of Mormon does not say what you assumed it said. There is no DNA evidence that can prove the Book of Mormon wrong by it's own tenets. That I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to reasonable people. That IMHO is why you wanted to wave the red herring of archeological evidence, that, again IMHO, is why we are not discussing DNA, because you can't defend your position, so you change the subject. Please explain to us again how Moroni meant he had no Lamanite Blood when the said he was a "pure descendant of Lehi" Even though Nephi and Laman were full brothers.

DU Who said Mormons don't need faith? Reading comprehension problems?

GZ Well, I guess you have your name in for one of those Nephi bom land tours then (I hear they are unreal).

You can find them Here right next to tours in Jerusalem and Israel...

DU The church also has a Center in Jerusalem, has tours over there and spends money on research there, is it your contention that we do that to prove the Bible true?

GZ Don’t need mormons to prove the bible true, you are newcommers to the game. But that is a change in policy – mormons historically have dissed the bible inspite of paying lip service to it.

LOL! The church has been at it longer than you have (personally) so compare to them you are the newcomer. (unless you are now going to say you represent some church or the other)

Mormons have never dissed the Bible, it's one of our canonized standard works.

DU I will state that we already know the Book of Mormon is God's word. (God tells us so)

GZ Circular logic to the max. bom claims it is true tells you to read it and pray and if you get a subjective warm fuzzy its true.

Sometimes, sometimes the answer comes in other ways, God is not limited and his answers are always perfectly delivered. If you had read my testimony, you would know that my witness was not a warm and fuzzy experience, but much more specific than that.

DU Actually, I read an article somewhere that said He only had photographs in which the wire brush marks were clearly visible. I can't seem to find that article again though :-( That memory is what my statement was based on, it was not a lie. GZ Then clearly state so. However, still doesn’t answer the question, Nib would / should have had access to the rubbing if it existed. More hearsay

Gosh, you mean you want my posts to be longer? (I think I speak for everyone when I say God forbid!

How do you know Hugh Nibley would have had anything else available to him? How do you know he wasn't saying that and the church does not talk about the stone to protect it? How do you know I am not truthful when you accuse me of a lie?

GZ Yes I know of the “geologist’s” estimate, but that is only a WAG and not anything I would bet my professional credential on.

DU Why not? You go out on slimmer limbs here...

GZ Because, unlike you, I have a far greater understanding of those variables involved and such a WAG doesn’t stand the test today. Since you cannot prove the ‘dates’ otherwise – there are no studies of the sort at the site – you just have more unsubstantied claims.

Please present your credentials as an archeologist, or we'll all just have to take you for an internet braggart on the "I know more than you do" comment.

I don't have to prove the dates, the inscription was there (as witness by Indians and people who had seen it before 1850, the man who bought the land knew it was there 1871 no-one could have read or written the script before about 1940 so unless Hibben completely struck the rock face and resurfaced the stone and carved his "imperfect" Hebrew inscription, (I have seen an estimate for the, it would take about a year with the tools Hibben had) then it is genuine. Can you prove that he did that?

DU Did you or did you not hear the native talking about Nahom? Now he does not pronounce it quite the way I do, but it would have had the same vowels. If you did not get this, go listen again.

GZ As pointed out earlier, the insertion of vowels is not proof, as there are 25 different combinations.

Precisely my point! So even if Joseph had access to a map of the interior of Arabia (that would have shown this not on the map place, yeah right) and he cold find this nowhere place NHM rendering it Nahom is a an additional one in 25 shot which he nailed. How many bulls eyes does it take to become "interesting to you" Go watch the Video again pay close attention at 2:03 when the native is saying the name, it's Nahom.

GZ It sounded like Nihm.

Pardon me, but you have a some faith stuck in your ears...

GZ If the consonants "NHM" are pronounced as written, it should be pronounced with the H as hard, not soft (this is what we find in "nahom" to be sorry"). So the sound would be like "ch" as in Scottish "loch" and we should expect it to have been pronounced Nachom, not "Nahom." The Book of Mormon placename doesn't fit the Hebrew word "to be sorry". The location of Nahom is nothing more than shooting arrows, then drawing the target.

Lurkers, if I may be so bold as to suggest an action, go watch the Video, then decide for yourselves.

DU Naholm exists where it's supposed to be, Bountiful exists where it's supposed to be

GZ From a book so generic that just about any place could match the description. The location of Nahom is nothing more than shooting arrows, then drawing the target.

Then find me one, just one other location on the map that fits, find me another "Bountiful" that fits. Let me know when you have given up trying. Your Shoot an arrow and draw a target analogy would have us believe that there are many such places, show me one, just one. (the argument used to be "there is no such place".) GZ But that begs the point – if they are valid, there should be millions times more artifacts here in America, not some highly debated (and unauthenticated by proper scientists) stones.

Proper shmoper, a flat earth argument if I ever heard one.

GZ Still want to see evidence that bountiful could supply the proper timber for an oceanic vessel as well as iron. Um it has tropical rain forests -- Forests = Trees.
As for Iron, you have to dig for that, and It would not take much to make a few tools, that much can be found almost anywhere there are mountains and bluffs.

Prove that there isn't any...

DU there is evidence of Horses in the ancient Americas.

GZ This is twice you’ve made this claim. I’ve already shot down one, where are your documented sources that there were horses during the bom era? Or were they deer or tapirs as Sorensen et.al. try to claim. Provide citation or withdraw the claim. Sigh, My father once told me "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.", Read'em and weep from a site called "Horses and The Book of Mormon" which is the first site that comes up when you search on horses in ancient Americas, Google, sometimes if just keeps people from looking silly, in this case nope!

FYI, look at a few more sites they all say the same thing, it's been confirmed even by "Archeologists" the horse was here before the Spanish brought some.

You will find some frantic sites claiming silly things like "700 BC is not 600BC so they were gone by then", and the like which is exactly what we would expect from the flat earthers.

GZ Wow a powerpoint presentation with no documentation to support, that is just overwhelming. I can see the gentiles now just banging at the gates wanting in, scientists by the gadzillions throwing down their work

As if science is just a means to the end of discrediting the Book of Mormon... A truly flat earth attitude. (we know the earth is flat, we just have to discredit all evidence to the contrary to prove it!) If you know a spiritual truth, then you don't have to "prove" it to anyone else, you already know it, it's called faith (I believe you would call that being an in-dwelling faither, which I am).

DU Yep, the Video was produced I think a couple of years after he joined the church..

GZ And you claim I don’t watch these things.

Or at least the anti sites (I can find some where this is mentioned, can't you?)

DU Thus your argument that Keith misrepresented the data, must include the report he wrote before he Joined the church.

GZ Where in the non-mormon world is this report.

I don't know, presumably in some dusty journal of Genetics. I do know that FAIR has publicized it rather extensively, and you can buy a book which contains a copy of the report, here: Book of Mormon and New World DNA.

Of course that is if you don't mind supporting FAIR... >;-)

GZ Consistent, perhaps, but consistently wrong.

Says the layman of the Scientist who specializes in the field...

GZ Crandall diverted the focus, thus losing the forest because of the trees.

Pray tell, just how you know what Keith Crandall's focus was, we are all ears, is that you miss Cleo?

GZ More recent studies make it very clear, the haplogroup X that Crandall reported detected is not related by subgroup to that of Hebrews. And the trouble starts right at your own home supporting this

Keith did not say he had found Jewish DNA, he said if that's what you are looking for, then this is your most likely group. Go listen to the Video!

part 1 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
part 2 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
Part 3 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA

What he did say is that you don't have a pure sample to start with, they didn't stay genetically conservative in their marriages, so proving a negative is impossible!

Now all your Halpo type X crap I admit right here and right now it does not prove the Book of Mormon to be true. I do not believe anyone will ever prove the Book of Mormon true with archeology. God wants people to have to ask HIM! Get it?

GZ Book of Mormon anticipates modern Mesoamerican archeology.
Drinking the koolaid again. From the Smithsonian, their standard answer.

If you go back and look, I posted an excerpt from an article called Is the Book of Mormon really an ancient book?" and indented the text like this:

Book of Mormon anticipates modern Mesoamerican archeology. (From 'The Ensign' magazine, September, 1984, pg. 33)

A prime example of a topic on which expert views have changed drastically to be more in agreement with the Book of Mormon is armed conflict. Until recently the prevailing picture of Mesoamerica was that only peaceful societies existed in the the climatic Classic era, exemplified by the spectacular Maya and Teotihuacan ruins dating from about AD 300 to 800.
Mayan leaders were supposed to have spent their time peacefully contemplating and worshipping a complex set of gods, gazing at notable art, playing philosophical games with their calendar, and otherwise acting like "the Greeks of the New World." Only after AD 1000 was militarism supposed to have played a role in Mesoamerican history.
In the 1950s and 1960s a few voices - Armilles, Rands, Palerm - urged that this picture must be revised, but nobody listened. The big shift came with the 1970 work by Tulane University at Becan in the Yucatan Peninsula. The center of the site is surrounded by a ditch almost two kilometers in circumference and averaging 16 meters across. The makers had piled the earth to form a ridge on the inner side of the ditch. David Webster described the military effect of this fortification:

"To throw 'uphill' from the outside is almost impossible. Defenders, possibly screened by a palisade, could have rained long-distance missiles on approaching enemies using spearthrowers and slings."

(From the Book of Mormon, Alma 49:18-20)

18 Now behold, the Lamanites could not get into their forts of security by any other way save by the entrance, because of the highness of the bank which had been thrown up, and the depth of the ditch which had been dug round about, save it were by the entrance.
19 And thus were the Nephites prepared to destroy all such as should attempt to climb up to enter the fort by any other way, by casting over stones and arrows at them.
20 Thus they were prepared, yea, a body of their strongest men, with their swords and their slings, to smite down all who should attempt to come into their place of security by the place of entrance; and thus were they Prepared to defend themselves against the Lamanites.

Anti Momorns keep asking me "where are the cities?, where are the artifacts? Where's the beef? Well, here is a patty of ground chuck, deny all you want, it does not matter it's still true whether or not you believe, deny at your eternal peril.

As to the statement about the Book of Mormon by the Smithsonian, I guess were in Good company... The Bible—‘it’s not historical’ contains these quotes:

‘The Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah’s flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions:
‘ … Many people ask if the Biblical flood actually took place, i.e. a flood which literally covered the entire earth and wiped out all living things except those which managed to board the ark?
‘The occurrence of a flood story in both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as in other folk traditions, does hint that there may have been enormous flooding of river valleys in a far distant time. However, thus far, after literally hundreds of archeological excavations at different times in the Near East, no all-encompassing flood stratum has ever been found.’

They also make the statement that the bible is a religious and not a historical document

Oh well!

GZ And so where are the artifacts Du, swords, armor, chariots, steel bows, helmets – the markers of an civilization with advanced metallurgy? The mormon archaeologists says . . . . (crickets). Mayans dominated the region selected for the LGT, yet no mention or influence from a Hebraic culture with advanced technology has ever been encountered. (more crickets)

OK, Let's take apart your broadside of weaponry terms:

1. Swords: who said the swords were made of metal, or that if they were that they were going to be of "stainless steel"?
   FromSwords and "Cimeters" in the Book of Mormon
   

   When the Spanish conquistadors faced Mesoamerican armies in the early sixteenth century, without hesitation they called the most fearsome type of native weapon espada, "sword." The Aztec name was macuahuitl (pronounced "mah-kwah-weetl") or macana. When the indomitable Bernal Díaz, one of Cortez's companions in his conquest of central Mexico, saw the macuahuitl at work in the hands of the enemy, he reported that "their swords, which were as long as broadswords, were made of flint which cut worse [i.e., more sharply] than a knife, and the blades were so set that one could neither break them nor pull them out."

2. armor: as anyone who has played Dungeons and dragons will tell you not all armor is plate mail. That said, Ancient American Antiquities And Artifacts Mound builders buried with their mounds have been found people buried in Copper plate mail, complete with copper helmets. This most certainly counts as "armor". (BTW, they also bound copper axeheads, arrow heads, etc.
   
   
3. Chariots: get real, there is little to no chance of finding the remains a wooden chariot after centuries. (it took hundreds of years of looking to prove they were in Israel, and we knew where to look!)
4. Steel Bows: Nephi's steel bow was from Jerusalem, remember? The Bible also refers to Steel bows from the same era Bible and Book of Mormon Steel.(has references to the Bible steel bows)
5. Helmets: Did I mention that the Guy wearing armor also had a helmet (<Ancient American Antiquities And Artifacts) I can get more, but do your own homework.

So, Swords, armor, chariots, Nephi's steel bow, helmets all either verified, or explained. poof, so much for your "objections". Lurkers, this is an excellent example of how anti Mormons throw up "challenges" to the Book of Mormon. they like to throw a bunch of spaghetti at the fridge and see if anything sticks (As if it's our job to answer their every off topic question) However, there is only one real, valid test for the Book of Mormon, and that is to ask God. I have been accused on this thread of lying. On other threads the anti's have been accused of lying. You can't trust either of us, but you can trust God. Put the Book of Mormon to The test to know for sure, then you can just ignore us, or join in for the fun of it.

DU For your problems, Bacteria from ancient poop? How low can you go? (Just had to have fun with it.) But so?

GZ You have been arguing only one facet of DNA studies – mtDNA, as I have several times now pointed out, other DNA methodologies have been investigated (including Y chromosome, and Polymorphic Alu insertions) used to study the origins of native Americans. You must be very blissful in your ignorance. Let your apologists spin away these other studies. Now regarding coprolites (proper termonlogy for ancient poop), the study I cited had nothing to do with that, here is an example of what I was refering to <--Snip-->

Godzilla, I'll explain it again, and I'll use small words this time.

The -- Book -- of -- Mormon -- does -- not -- say -- the -- party -- that -- came -- over -- with -- Lehi -- were -- here -- alone.

The -- Book -- of -- Mormon -- says -- they -- met -- people -- who -- outnumbered -- them -- and -- they -- joined -- with -- them.

The -- Book -- of -- Mormon -- does -- not -- say -- where -- these -- other -- people -- came -- from.

Do -- you -- understand -- English?

Therefore, who cares about the gastrointestinal parasites of petrified poo? Capisce? DU This does not interest me because A) It's poop and B) even if true, it has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. kind of like who discovered an artifact that could not have been forged, does not matter to me nearly as much as the artifact.

GZ An act of dismissal a priori DU, poor form.

No, I addressed it. Even if the DNA study says exactly what you say it does about the origin of the bacteria in the poo, since the Book of Mormon does not say they were the only ones here, unless you found a sign saying "Nephi's personal outhouse" with a date of 600BC on it, then it does not matter, because it's not proof. (although such a sign would be proof I'd love to see for many reasons, chuckle.)

GZ Already outlined above as another independent DNA test. And coprolites also show the myth of hebrew origins of native americans remain just that – a myth.

as I said, all such DNA studies rely on erroneous assumptions of a pure sample and genetic conservatism, neither of which are in the Book of Mormon.

GZ You display a great deal of ignorance on the DNA studies outside of the very limited apologetic by Crandall (and now discredited by a mormon genetic research institute) on mtDNA Haplogroup X. Genetic studies of dogs also show migration with humans via Siberia. How is your bom guide book at predicting that?

LOL! Let's not get into discussing where we think each other is "ignorant" or we'll both be posting in a vacuum.

OK, so some dogs migrated here with some people who came from Siberia. I have no problem with that, maybe those were the people of Zarahemla... (now do you see your problem with proving this false?)

You know this is already turning into an opus nobody but you and I and loyal fans will read, so I'm going to tell a story.

When I was on my mission (in Taiwan) I had an elder who was convinced that if I would just let him "off the leash" that he could logically prove the church was true to the Chinese people.

Finally, we were visiting an old man who IMHO was never going to join, but he liked to have Americans come visit.

It was a rainy day, we had a three hours before our next appointment, which was in the neighborhood... I turned to the elderly gentleman and said in Taiwanese (which my companion did not speak) My companion thinks he can explain religion with logic, would you mind teaching him? He responded that he would be honored.

So I looked over at my companion, and said "OK, convince him, I'll even help with vocabulary when you need it."

My companion launched into a complex and lengthy "logical" explanation designed to let him follow his bread crumbs back back after he got the person to agree with him on a "Logical" question.

Failing time and again to get the response he wanted, he got down to "Two plus two equals four, right?" And the Chinese guy said "most of the time", my companion went "What?" and the Chinese guy said "Well so far it has, but you never know about next time"...

At which point my companion looked at me and said "You Knew! I spent all this time and you Knew!"

I dropped finally into English and said to him "Chinese people believe that conflicting truths can all be true, because we humans will never have all the data."

Back in Chinese, I told him he apparently had to learn for himself, and the Chinese guy said, "All such truths must be learned for your self".

(I'm going to use the word "you" in an all inclusive sense for all anti Mormons and everyone who opposes a religion)

You see, you can argue that my faith is wrong all you want, but you can never win, it's my faith, not yours. when it comes to religion, either only one is right, or all are wrong, but most people come to a more Chinese philosophy, as long as you are doing good by my book...

You will always look bad, just like American missionaries of every denomination looked bad to the Chinese people while trying to "prove" Christianity true. The only real conversion comes from the inside, not the outside, don't you understand that? You will never win this "fight" because it's about what I believe. You lost before you began.

My advice to you is; Go and testify of what you believe, you'll have more fun, you'll convert more people, and you will not look so funny to people who look at you kind of like they look at a rabid dog, afraid to get too close in case it's catchy.

I'm going to end this response prematurely on this note in hopes that you'll "Get it". I'll also point out to you if you are thinking "I'm doing this for the lurkers!" LOL! I get two or three FM per year from people who joined after watching a few of these threads, and I have Freepers who FM me with comments because they like to watch you guys tie yourselves in knots like this... what do you get that from Lurkers? anything? are they even interested, or are all the people who send you stuff people who started on your side or were already convinced when they found your thread? Think about this, all antis of every faith.

Go with God and Go ask God.