[DelphiUser]

GZ This will be far briefer because most has been addressed in the previous post.

That would be a change of pace.

GZ And blood typing has absolutely nothing to do with looking at mtDNA. Again, you get off your script and you show you shallowness in the matter.

The blood typing was an example of a corrupted source, which you have never addressed.

GZ One is documented by hard physical evidence that is testable, the other is heresy.

Science and faith mixed, sounds like a perfect recipe for a flat earth convention!

GZ Just for the lurkers, since DU it is uncertain he will address it in my previous (or try to ignore it like the other DNA data methodologies i presented).

I will address your DNA issues as soon as you address the corrupted and diluted DNA that I have pointed out until then your conclusions are moot.

GZ As stated earlier, this is only the tip of the iceberg that directly addresses your yeh-buts about mtDNA haplotype X in the americas.

As I stated earlier, the DNA tests only matter if you start with a clean sample, and keep it clean as you go, they didn't do either.

DU You just don't have a group of Nephites that take in small groups of people from the same region, you have a small group of Nephites who join a much larger group of unknown ancestry, then to make matters worse, the add several smaller groups also of unknown ancestry. Now that you know they were not from the same "area" what do you say about the "genetics"?

GZ Once again, DU shows he is very shallow in his argument once he gets off script. Genetic population studies do not need pure ancestry, but follows the very traceable mtDNA (passed by women, yet present in men) and Y chromosomal sequences (passed by men). He is pure because he can some how make the claim that non of his ancestors intermarried with the dark and loathsome/B> lamanites, and was therefore white and delightful.

LOL! You always call every one shallow, I just wish we could all be as "deep" as you, LOL!

OK, let's talk Mitochondria, it's only passed by women to all their children (male and female) and it only is a good trace if you don't add other women from outside the group being traced, oops Well there goes that one.

As to the purity, LOL! After Christ came, everyone became lighter skinned until some went and took up the old oaths, so he could have had some Lamanite blood and been white. Saying that he was a "Pure descendant of Lehi" can only mean it was possible not to be a descendant of Lehi, or a partial descendant.

DU You just don't have a group of Nephites that take in small groups of people from the same region, you have a small group of Nephites who join a much larger group of unknown ancestry, then to make matters worse, the add several smaller groups also of unknown ancestry. Now that you know they were not from the same "area" what do you say about the "genetics"?

GZ Once again, off script and floundering.

What is that? Is that supposed to make me mad? LOL! I am never "on script" I do all my writing on my own and don't rely on anti sites to feed me issues.

GZ The Bom and mormon teaching say that the continent was empty for Nephi, et al.

You said htat before, I debunked it before. The book of Mormon says the exact opposite, there were people here when they got here, and Nephi knew more would come.

Lurkers, you don't have to wonder, Get a Book of Momron and look it up yourself.

GZ There was no larger group for them to join.

One of the First groups they found was the people of Zarahemla: Omni 1:14

14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.

They continued to meet other peoples and it was not even remarked on most of the time, this being a spiritual record.

GZ If DU bothers to read any of the posts, DNA population studies deal with regional sources (ethinic groups having the same genetic identity) and how those people migrated out from them. All of the peoples listed in the bom came from the same region. Even if a few slaves were thrown into the mix, the semetic DNA patterns would still carry down of what the bom predicts is true - the native americans are from the middle east. You are trying to hide within the LGT that in itself cannot hold water. I have read your posts, and lost braincells thereby.

Let's take the slaves issue (which alone could make it a corrupted sample) Let's try a few examples of slavery:

A) the Good old USofA way back before any of us was born there were slaves in the south, of course they would have the same DNA as us because they were living in the same area, wait, no they don't...

B) Joseph in the Bible was a slave in Egypt for a while, so of course he would have... No that does not work either.

With the exception of Africa, I know of no place that was enslaving their own people at that point in history (600 BC) Most slaves came from "elsewhere".

So Zoram being a slave could have been African, or Asian, or whatever and bingo corrupted genome. My point is since you don't know, you can't prove a negative.

DU Why is there oral tradition of the Lemba tribe enough for serious investigation, yet the Indians in Los Lunas's stories about the rock are not?

GZ One is documented by hard physical evidence that is testable, the other is heresy.

I'm sorry which is it, science or religion? Of yeah, flat Earthers think they are the same thing. So once it's proven by science, it's OK with the faith, I got it.

DU They can now, when was the data for the studies you are quoting collected? not within the last five years... (your comment is being filed in the appropriate receptacle, along with all the others.)

GZ 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.

Godzilla, before you can even hope to address the results of a test, you must first asses what you are trying to find, which is the DNA that went on the trip, and if you don't know what even some of that DNA was, well you don't know waht to look of and will not even know if you find it.

Until the issue of who's DNA started toward America is resolved and DNA results is a case of having the cart before the horse. I truly understand you desire to skip to the end and declare us wrong, but to do so without crossing all your I's and dotting all your T's well you end up looking like the metaphor I just mixed for your amusement.

<--Skipping all the Irrelevant DNA studies that can't be useful because we did not start at the beginning -->

GZ As stated earlier, this is only the tip of the iceberg that directly addresses your yeh-buts about mtDNA haplotype X in the Americas.

It's not "Yeh Buts", but "So whats" The results you are getting are consistent with what I would expect from what I read in the Book of Mormon, Hence, the So what? factor.

GZ Once again, DU shows he is very shallow in his argument once he gets off script.

Now I know why these get so long... you wast a lot of time getting personal... (and no, I am not going to report you, i think it detracts from your argument, please, keep doing it.)

GZ Genetic population studies do not need pure ancestry

You know, I'd love to see you convince a real population Geneticist of that. (Hey we can find whatever you want in your DNA for a little extra... LOL!)

GZ but follows the very traceable mtDNA (passed by women, yet present in men) and Y chromosomal sequences (passed by men).

Someone needs a refresher course on DNA, read this --> complex genetic testing involving autosomal DNA: The Mitochondria DNA would only be preserved intact if there were no women from outside the Group included. There were such women from the very beginning.

GZ He is pure because he can some how make the claim that non of his ancestors intermarried with the dark and loathsome/B> lamanites, and was therefore white and delightful.

You may be a racist, and you might consider this to be a valid interpretation, to me it makes no sense, ergo you are grasping at straws. Let's review the Exact verse this is from:
3 Ne. 5: 20

20 I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi. I have reason to bless my God and my Savior Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, (and no one knew it save it were himself and those whom he brought out of that land) and that he hath given me and my people so much knowledge unto the salvation of our souls.

This does not seem to be a time for Racism, this colophon is a time to point out that he is a genetic descendant of Israel and to thank God for that.

DU You just don't have a group of Nephites that take in small groups of people from the same region, you have a small group of Nephites who join a much larger group of unknown ancestry, then to make matters worse, the add several smaller groups also of unknown ancestry. Now that you know they were not from the same "area" what do you say about the "genetics"?

GZ Once again, off script and floundering.

Once again, you just can't help but make it personal, LOL! GZ The Bom and mormon teaching say that the continent was empty for Nephi, et al.

That is completely false.

GZ There was no larger group for them to join.

The people of Zarahemla who's ancestry we don't know...

GZ If DU bothers to read any of the posts, DNA population studies deal with regional sources (ethnic groups having the same genetic identity) and how those people migrated out from them.

Let's test that shall we, I live in Utah, therefore If I migrate to New York you'll be able to trace me back to Utah by my neighbors. Let's see, I came originally from the mid west, My next door neighbor comes from Wyoming, and on the other side Peru. I don't think this is going to work out very well.

Let me try:

DNA population studies deal with cohesive populations (ethnic groups having the same Identity) and how those people keep their identity when physically moved to a new location by being genetically conservative.

Yeah, that would work, except that's not what we have, slaves are not always, or even often of the same genetic ethnic groups as the slave owner. Can you hear me now?

GZ All of the peoples listed in the bom came from the same region.

This is precisely the Flaw that invalidates the whole DNA to prove you wrong scenario, we don't know that, we have slaves and their daughters marrying in right at the beginning of the departure. GZ Even if a few slaves were thrown into the mix, the semetic DNA patterns would still carry down of what the bom predicts is true - the native americans are from the middle east. You are trying to hide within the LGT that in itself cannot hold water.

Actually, that is not true. If you assume the America's was completely unpopulated, and no-one else came from anywhere else... Then maybe you'll find something recognizable, maybe. But since the Book of Mormon says there were other people (several times in fact) and they just keep adding them in, and since we know the vikings had an outpost here for a while and the Spaniards and the Europeans were happily married into the Indian population I submit that you have no evidence supporting a genetically conservative people, and since the Book of Mormon lists some descendants of Ishmael, Mormons colophon staing that he was a pure descendant of Lehi makes more sense as a genetic statement than as a racist comment.

DU And you are not selective in your citations? Shame on you!

GZ I went back to the source documents to see if they were cited correctly - they were distorted. That is the difference between you and me. I look deeper, you don't.

I.. I look Deep really, stop calling me shallow you big, you big bully you Bwahhhaa!

LOL! I think the amount of links and evidence I include in my posts and the amount of links and evidence you include in your posts speaks for itself.

DU LOL! Can you prove any of that? No. I didn't say that everyone who was doing genetic research on Indians was an anti Mormon, I said anti Mormons always make such discussions into a cesspool (reading comprehension, it's essential to a good argument.)

GZ Yes it is because by common mormon definition, anyone who counters mormon beliefs or doctrine in any way is automatically defined as an anti-mormon.

Can you please point me to the "Common Mormon Dictionary"? LOL!
Anti Mormons are people who oppose the church, not just people who said something bad about us once or twice. Some times people say things about us that are not flattering, but are true. They are not anti Mormons, the pope for example has said things that are unflattering about Mormons, he has also said some nice things, he's not an anti Mormon.

The researchers who don't bother to get involved in religious wars are smart in that they will never live down the scorn of the side they don't agree with.

Let's take Keith Crandall, In this very thread you have impugned his integrity because of his findings, do you think you;ll get over that in five years?, ten? Twenty? If things hold true to form antis will be cursing his name until and unless he leaves the church and fights against it, then all will be forgiven by the antis and he will be their darling.

DU So instead of saying they are the only ones, Nephi is saying only men that God leads can come to the Americas, and that they will be safe as long as they are righteous.

GZ Ah yes, the old bom didn't really mean what it said ploy.

Actually, the Book of Mormon means exactly what it says, but not if you pick one scripture out of a chapter and ignore the ones around it, speaking of selective Citations...

GZ Once again there is total silence regarding interactions with these others.

You know, it's not as if it was written as a "historical document" it's a spiritual record, but it does talk about finding other groups like the people of Zarahemla for example.

GZ Fact is that they are identified in vs 9 - those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem, you know that context thing. Common usage of the term nations also preclude others The fact that your interpretation doesn't hold water to what Smith taught (something about the original intent of the author)

LOL! Like you would know the original intent of the author, you think Joseph smith was the author, LOL! (do you know what a begging the question is?), that and calling your suppositions facts is just funny, please keep it amusing!

Let's broaden our scriptural scope a bit (again, I know Lurkers, I know)
@ Nephi 1:5-11

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.

Now, Godzilla, I took your advice and added Color to the Quote, See the text in red? Yeah, put verse 9 in that context (five comes before nine in the book and in counting) thus we see (that's a bit of Book o fmomron Lingo) that the context of 2 Nephi verse nine is that nations will not "know" of this land, but that peoples from many countries will come here being led by the lord, and that this group comes from Jerusalem.

Can you hear me now? Do I need to speak more slowly? Again?

GZ Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon as "the history of ancient America . . . from its first settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel [the Jaredites]" – Times and Seasons, (March 1, 1842) III:707.

Tower of Babel which was when? Before Jacob was born, surely you are not going to say he would have the DNA of people he might or might not be related to...

DU And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla

15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.

GZ Hint, hint DU, they would have the same genetic make up as Nephi - vs 9 thing again.

Hint Hint Godzilla, are you willing to stake your professional reputation on that? We just don't know, we can assume, but it throws the results of any DNA test into doubt. The group that came with Lehi included a slave and his descendants, what makes you think the people of Zarahemla had pure DNA? Because it works for what you are trying to accomplish? Nice try... You keep demanding unbroken chains of evidence for proofs for the Book of Mormon, don't you think you should demand the same for proof against?

This is precisely why I originally cited you for an Appeal to Ignorance, you see, your premise here seems to be that since we don't know, we can assume it is the way anti's want it to be..., and we just can't. That was the whole point of Keith Crandall's paper. You can't prove the Book ofmormons false by it's own Tenets with DNA because there is too much ambiguity in where the people who populate the book come from, thus you just can't prove the negative. The positive on the other hand is still possible to prove, it just has not been. Again, Keith says that they Mayans are where you should start looking if you want to find that proof positive (which I personally believe will never happen) And again just to come completely full circle "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -- Hugh Nibley (who is not infallible) GZ Who also came from the region of Israel - wow fancy that.

Mulek was indeed from Israel, as a son of Zedikiah, we can even be sure of his geneology, his companions on the trip, the people he picked up along the way... Well more questions marks I'm afraid.

you see, in order to prove a negative, you have to eliminate all positives, not just one, to prove a positive, all I have to do is have one positive. God answered and said it was his word. That's good enough for me. I'll stake not just my professional reputation, but my eternal salvation on God's word, you?

DU Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing.

GZ stayed white and delightsome.

You are still going with the racism thing even after all the other people who he could have been related to? LOL! Well you're persistent if not smart!

GZ All that you have done is to prove that these others were from Israel and the surrounding region and would carry the those semetic genetic patterns and types. In you blindness, you ignore that current science, endorsed by the Sorenson Foundation, places men here far, far earlier.

It's not blindness, as soon as you have parties of people from differing times and of differing ancestry, some you are only told the leader's ancestry, you just don't have enough to perform a reliable genetic study from. Turn it around, if I had to "assume" as much data as you "assume" here to get a positive, you'd rightfully be laughing me out of town. Pleas keep it up, you look silly insisting that Rocks were forged but bloodlines that are undocumented are pure, it's funny actually.

GZ Not only does the bom fail to document interactions with these established peoples, these same peoples document interactions with everyone but these hebrew speaking people.

Gosh, I'm sorry, the book of Mormon wasn't written in a way that makes it easy to discredit, maybe it was written for spiritual reasons...

DU As for beginning their own race... It was an ideological difference, ending up in a people who looked different I don't think you can prove they intended to start their own race.

GZ Way off your script again, a new race was not created

Then why did you say it was, go back and look, I was responding to you saying the Lamanites were a race...

GZ what genetic differences were there between the two groups - none, both were Jews.

Actually, that's another part of the problem, none of them were Jews, the Jews are one of the twelve tribes of Israel, they were descendants of Judah, Lehi was a descendant of Joseph Through Manasseh, Joseph had a different mother then Judah (see your section on Mitochondrial DNA), and while Leah and Rachel were sisters, it would have only mattered to have Rachel married off first if she was from the first wife, and Leah from the Second. There is the distinct possibility that Leah and Rachel had differing Mitochondrial DNA and therefore their descendants would have differing DNA too. Now you are going to argue that Polygamy was not that common, or bad or something, Jacob was given both sisters to be his wife by their father, who actually set the whole thing up, and worse Leah got one week before Rachel joined the family. So obviously they did not have the problems we do with polygamy, I mean come on DAD set up both daughters with the same guy one week apart!

Again, the only reason it would have mattered is if they were of different mothers so the DNA thing. Now you have Joseph who is from Rachel and Judah who is from Leah. This complicates the whole DNA identification nes pas?

Hopefully now you can see why I can say, I don't think this will ever be proven.

GZ To say otherwise would deny mormonism's claim that the indians were descendants of jewish ancestors. LOL, go look up the definition. As I asked earlier, did God change the Lamanite dna when he made them dark and loathsome? LOL, keep spinning du

Sigh, it's not a spin, it's truth, just because you are from the middle east, does not mean you will have Jewish DNA, or all the Arabs would insist on blood transfusions and Gene therapy "now dang it NOW!"

As for the Indians not being descendants, they are, just not direct - Exclusive, or Pure descendants, so?

GZ I am a professional geologist, I don't go to UFO conventions to gain insights on recent tectonic activity in the world. My goodness you are waaaaay off of your script now (and you accused me of wearing tinfoil). Ladies and gentleman, lurkers of FR, this is another example of how mormonism supports its interpretations

So if I take your paper and present it at a UFO convention, you are less credible? You are more shallow than I thought.

GZ Zoram Alma 54: 23 I am Ammoron, and a descendant of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem.
Mulek - a son of Zedekiah, king at the time of Jerusalem. Wow and you say we don't know their genetic makeup? Its all right there in the bom - they are hebrews and as such carry the semitic genetic makeup. Stick to your script du, you are way over your head.

Ammoron is a descendant of Zoram, who was pressed into service in at jerusalem, great, and who might his ancestry be? We don't know.

Mulek - was a descendant of the house of Abraham, and his entourage? We don't know.

DU Amazing, you have an eminently qualified scientist, one who's work you have to cite in order to make the case against us, who then joins the church after saying the findings against us are wrong and you want to cite his early work, dismiss the work that disagrees with you and besmirching his reputation by saying that he is now compromised because of his (new) faith.

GZ As was clearly shown in this and the previous post, Crandall had the information regarding the mtDNA X in the americas, and chose to ignore it.

Why? Why would a scientist with everything to lose and nothing to gain ignore such evidence? Because after a careful analysis of the Book of Mormon, he determined that no DNA test could prove it wrong, that's why.

GZ As shown later by Southerton and others, his interpretation of the data was premature (or flawed, since he didn't factor in the other data).

OK, you are a Geologist, if I tried to use some of your work to disagree with you about the probability of an oil deposit under a hill and you come along and look at my data and laugh out loud while saying there is no way there is oil there that's solid granite, and I disagree, who's gonna look silly?

I would. Southerton is a plant biologist for crying out loud he is as out of his depth with Popluation Genetics as I would be geology, quoting him is just like quoting from a UFO convention!

GZ But that is moot now because of the 2009 report that has mormons from the Sorenson Genetic Foundation that has clearly identified the X2a as a separate haplogroup not related to the old world (hint - Europe or middle east).

So what? If you can't nail down that the group had a pure sample, you can't prove anything but a positive, the negative just has to many explanations.
GZ Whether or not his new found faith created a zeal that overroad his common sense and common practices of science, only he can answer.

Only Scott Southerton's New found faith and new found zeal overrode his common sense and common practice of science in disregarding the need for a pure sample and conservative genetic practices. (see how this cuts both ways, besides it's another Appeal to Ignorance...)

GZ But his treatment of the data was clearly flawed.

Yeah! Go get Him you geologist you! Wow, I wish I was an actor so I could comment on politics, or a Geologist so I could comment on DNA studies! (laughter echos)

DU It's the old Occam's razor thing again, which is more likely, that you are a flat earther when it comes to Mormons, or that Keith Crandall suddenly lost his mind and joined a church that he could prove wrong scientifically? Occam's razor slices you pretty deep on that one.

GZ An appeal to authority is a flawed methodology to apply to Occam's razor.

Um, an Appeal to Authority is basically where the argument is made that an authority has already reviewed the case and decided, so there is no need to investigate further, it is meant to end discussion. I did not do that.

What I just did was more of an appeal to common sense.

GZ Occam's razor is based upon the burden of proof and the simplest answer that evidence points to.

Really? and here I thought the definition was "the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity."

It seems to me that you apply a lot of assumptions to get to a negative result on the DNA to prove the Book of Mormon wrong, hence Occam's razor keeps cutting you when you try to use it.

GZ Mormonism has no evidence, nada, zero, zilch as the studies and reports I've posted show.

Yet, I post hings that do show evidence, thus some exists, you just are not accepting it, which is perfectly OK with me. The problem is then you insist the reality bend to your opinion, and if just does not do that.

GZ And if geologic interpretations from a presentation at a UFO convention is part of mormonism's evidence, then mormon scholarship and apologetics are truly bankrupt.

LOL! When Genetic studies by a Population Geneticist are questions by a plant biologist as part of the argument against the Book of Mormon, the anti Mormons are truly bankrupt.

See how easy it is to spout platitudes?

Let's recap: until someone can show the genealogy of every one in all the groups that joined with Lehi back to someone in the house of Israel, then the sample is possibly corrupted.

An uncorrupted sample is required for a negative proof against the Book of Mormon to eliminate the possibility of error.

A genetic sample from the house of Joseph (not Judah) is required to compare with the genetics of the descendants of Lehi in order to prove a negative.

Anti morons don't have any of the above, they have flawed studies that are based on their assumptions about the Book of Mormon, which are just not true.

Now let's hit some of the things we have talked about. There are several stones in the USA which bear engravings that when translated as early (paleo) Hebrew render as an abridgment of the ten commandments. There are places that match the descriptions of fortifications built by Nephites, there are fossilized bones of horses, there are places in the interior of Arabia that match closely with the places described by the Book of Mormon. The Lachish Letters are an Archeological proof for the Book of Mormon that is amazing in it's exactness of the description of the events in Jerusalem in 600 BC. I could go on, but logical people will see that pattern.

Anti Mormons ridicule and dismiss evidence after evidence and after dismissing all the evidence legitimately or otherwise, they declare "there is no evidence" as if the act of making that declaration will make it so.

Such actions are IMHO truly pathetic.

[Godzilla]

Because of the length of DU’s last two posts, I will have to break my replys over three posts. But for the lurkers out there, this series will show the absolute emptyness of the mormon apologetic regarding actual physical data with which one can evaluate the claims of the bom. Additionally, it will showcase the low threshold and sources of evidences in comparison to independent scientific studies.

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?

Nice how you try to isolate him from FARMS/Maxwell inst who also apparently view this irrefutable artifact as a fraud too. If los lunas proof cannot get over their low bar – perhaps you should take notice. In my search today, FARMS/Maxwell search for the term “Los Lunas” still turns up empty

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

I have cited sources for the scientific studies and where possible the links. I believe the lurkers out there can tell the difference between my factual back up and your fictional backup.

You know that the Los lunas stone is only one of many places htat paleo hebrew has been found in the Americas.

Funny DUh, most of your sources that have been provided have conistently indicated it was Phonecian, not proto-Hebrew and there are no citations that either used greek characters mixed in.

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.

Not all evidence is equal. Yes, even fraud could be considered evidence in your world. It has been found sorely lacking and if this were a court trial, it would be dismissed for lacking authenticity. Nib’s knew that, so do FARMS/Maxwell, so does the smithsonian, so do all legitimate archaeologists.

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.

Right, Kerry Shirts, a wonderful self proclaimed expert, I can see why you would cite him. No it is not the ‘dots’ but the carets used, not present in hebrew until the middle ages and not earlier. Lurkers note, DU sourcing only from a pro-mormon site, not a professional journal of any sort.

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.

I’ve not brought up spalding or VTTH in this thread. Unfortunately, while the Lachish ostraca do provide great historic data, they do not prove the bom to be correct in the slightest. First, the ostraca only deal with pre-exile information. Secondly, during the first year of the reign of Zedekiah Lehi prays (1 Nephi) and receives visions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of its Jewish residents. Well that is a very easy prophecy to make, considering that the first year of the reign of Zedekiah is after those very same events. Why did Lehi, having heard Jeremiah’ warnings for so long as a life-long resident of Jerusalem, wait until after the deportation and destruction to start warning the residents of deportation and the destruction of Jerusalem. . . . . . . . . Only a non-existant writer would have made that tale up.

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)

As indicated above, they alledgedly left in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign. Now take a deep breath, Lachish is before the deportation and before they alledgedly left. In this case this prophet was someone other than Lehi.

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.

Oh but the other evidence found in assocation with the pyramids more than confirmed what was lost or obscured due to outsiders. There are other associated ruins - The builders' villages boasted bakers, butchers, brewers, granaries, houses, cemeteries, and probably even some sorts of health-care facilities—there is evidence of laborers surviving crushed or amputated limbs. Bakeries excavated near the Great Pyramids could have produced thousands of loaves of bread every week. Are similar associated with Los Lunas – NO. Secondly, real archeologists have studied the site (how many real archaeologists have studied Los Lunas? (crickets).

What is it Anti Mormons wanting "controlled sites" and "per reviews" all the time? Life is messy.

Reduces the chance of fraud.

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!

There is no evidence he (or any other) didn’t know hebrew or have access to the Phonecian script. You yourself have stated he damaged the site – hardly a credable witness as to what was there to begin with.

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

There, fixed it for you. Please explain why it is read line sequence 1, 3 then 2? Such an error is likely that of someone copying and not some one with any fluency in the language.

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?

Oh, these same non-archaeologists DU? Or just people with a lot of imagination. And since you don’t bother to cite it. . . . .

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.

Again, how do you know this to be true DU, since you admit to not being there. Evidence shows that the writer didn’t know methods of engraving or know the phraselogy accurately to do it freehand. Nib’ster may be goofy, but at least he did at times place a measure on scientific reality on a study, and with much more to be gained by a verifiable artifact, he still used his professional judgement to call it a fraud – a decision that remains that of FARMS/Maxwell today.

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

Lurkers will note that this link sends on to a website that is not affiliated with any credable scientific/archaeological organization. There is no indication of who the author of the site is, but there is a book offered for sale by Barry Fell (America BC,1976), an amateur epigraphist. His claims for scientific rigour might hold for marine biology, but when it came to archaeological interpretation, he ignored the usual rules of evidence. Moreover, his publications were largely aimed at non specialists; instead of submitting his papers for publication in peer-reviewed journals (the usual procedure), he preferred to publish either in popular books or through the Epigraphic Society of North America, a society that can be characterised, not altogether unfairly, as being composed of his disciples. In other words, he shows all the characteristics of a Bad Archaeologist. Again hearsay. May be true, may be false or trumped up reporting. As such it is worthless as a citation or source.

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.

There are more than one way to document a citation DU, I don’t care if a link doesn’t work, there are more than one way to get to the information, so either put what you have up or withdraw the claim

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

LOL, you never cease to amaze me. For the lurkers out there, DU’s link has in its title graphic
UFO
Conspiracy Theorists
Lunatic Fringe

Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life in this apology. In two consecutive posts you send me to a UFO related website. You really have my pitty that you rely upon MUFON for you evidence to support the bom. We are trying to evaluate real, legitimate facts, not tinfoil.

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

Already one can see that this is not going to be an unbiased review.

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"

Wow, half buried, no evidence of that in Hibben’s report. If an object is 2/3ds covered in lichen, it would be impossible to get any kind of decent rubbing of any kind, so the sooner you find that reference the quicker you can think straight again. Of course you can go to the link of the contributor of DU’s quote and Every contributor of over $1,000 receives a reproduction Los Lunas Decalogue text in the same script and stone! Anyone with half a functioning brain can see where this irrefutable source of information is going.

Some anti Mormons don't fall ideologically far from Mark Hoffman,. . . . . . 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.

Oh this is rich, no wonder you seek out Conspiracy Theorists websites for your documentation LOL. So now someone is out to get the Los Lunas stone, ROTFLAICGU!!!!!! After you posted the UFO site again, I thought your credabilty couldn’t go any lower – you continue to surprise me. Your apologetic is a mile wide and half an inch deep and remarkably, you are drowning in it.

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

Again, stick to your script. For starters, the Tel Dan Stele does not contain an abridgement of the Decalogue, nor is the Decalogue to be found on it at all (you really should read your references). Yawn, look here it is at your level of understanding. Pay attention to the part called “Inscription narrative”. Do your home work and show me how they have the same abridgement.

There is plenty of evidence against many true things if you look hard enough, so?

The authencity of the evidence is at issue here. Again, you make your self out to be a 911 truther with that line of reasoning.

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.

If these claims about the inscription are correct, then it shows extraordinary carelessness. The Decalogue is one of the best known passages of the Bible and for anyone whose native tongue was Hebrew, it ought to have been all but impossible for the inscriber to make elementary errors. They did, though. In some places, the text is abbreviated; this is not unusual in ancient inscriptions, but in something so important as the Decalogue, it is surprising. The writer also changed the word order from the original Hebrew, something a person who believed in the inspired and unchangeable nature of the supposed words of Moses would never have done. . If he was a Jew, "lashon hakodesh" [the holy tongue] would have been a priority) regardless of whether he mixed his language as Nephi pretends. Therefore, it is the mistakes that indicate it to be a fraud and the creator likely that he thought his audience would not know the difference.

Further evidence of a Hellenistic or Byzantine influence on Los Lunas is provided by Skupin (1989). He analyzes the orthographic errors of the Los Lunas text itself, and concludes that it appears to have been written by a person whose primary language was Greek, who had a secondary, but verbal, comprehension of Hebrew. He writes of the inscriber, He used the consonant [aleph] as if it were a vowel, like the Greek alpha, even though this clashes with the Hebrew orthographic system .... He confounded [qoph] and [caph] as a Philhellene who only knew kappa might do, and was sufficiently removed from Hebrew to be unaware that he had made an irreverent slip thereby. Most amazingly, he 'heard' macrons, the drawling long vowels that are structurally and semantically important in Greek ... and felt compelled to indicate them even if he was not exactly sure of how it's done (and rightly so, since in Hebrew they're insignificant).... His word order suggests a scriptural tradition related to a Greek version produced in Alexandria, Egypt, as does his spelling; and finally, he gives inordinate prominence to the words 'brought you out of Egypt.'

So it has something that resembles paleo-Hebrew. As the above quotes indicate, that is far from an authenticating feature.

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...

Not in the slightest. Archaeological evidence of the sort could have been protected in many ways. That is simply mindreading DU and Nib’s statements say nothing of the sort. Again, the gain for a authenticated artifact would far outweigh all else. It wasn’t authentic.

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.

I have prayed about the bom and God witnessed to me that it was false. Your own prophets challenge all to test the bom. So far it is failing miserably. Lurkers will note that this is a common tactic to deflect the reader from the truth of the evidence against mormonism.

The only unimpeachable evidence in this world comes from God.

Once again, subjectivism versus reality. Is the wall you are hitting your head against real DU? Did God reveal if it was real or not?

That I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to reasonable people.

LOL, right, by sending the lurker to an presentation made at a UFO convention – that passes beyond a shadow of my doubt. Reasonable people don’t look to ET and reasonable people, such as the fine lurkers here, can see through smoke screens and weigh the evidence, which is clearly against the authencity of the los lunas stone.

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.

Come on DUh, I’ve already addressed it twice. Its that old race card mormonism had in place until 1978. Lamanites were turned “dark and loathesom”, and to intermarry by Nephites was forbidden. Thus he was stating the purity in being white and delightsome. Still doesn’t matter, same hebraic/ middle eastern genetics.

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

as far as correctly translated Still have yet to see which parts have not been correctly translated. But then one must resort to misleading the lurkers that mormonism has never dissed the bible (would that be considered a lie?). Lurkers – a quick hint, DU will later attempt to diss the bible via the same Smithsonian Inst. that condems the bom’s accuracy for archaeology.

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.

You can always tell when a mormon’s apologetic is crumbling, they have to recite their testimony for moral support. You’re drowning in that half inch deep apologetic DU.

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?

Go back and read his quote again DU. There is absolutely nothing there to indicate the mormon church is lying to protect it (lying for the Lord). With all the LDS’s money, they could easily bought up the site – just like they did at Mountain Meadows. Argument from ignorance.

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.

The age claims were based upon a WAG (do you know what those letters stand for DU?) made by a geologist – not an archaeologist, so stay focused. But then you probably still think I’m a paid minister LOL.

I don't have to prove the dates, the inscription was there (as witness by Indians and people who had seen it before 1850,

Therefore, by Occams razor, the rock is no younger than 1850

the man who bought the land knew it was there 1871 no-one could have read or written the script before about 1940

The Phoenician script was available before Hibbens discovery as early as the 1800’s

(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?

Again, I never said he did, never said he didn’t, only his professional judgement is lacking in the interpretation. However, how do you know what tools he had with him? Which story is correct.

This ends Part 1 of 3

[Godzilla]

Part 2 of 3

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)

How do you know for sure? In 1792 Robert Heron published a two-volume translation of Niebuhr’s first work titled Niebuhr’s Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East, which on a map contained the place name "Nehhm" at a location approximately twenty-five miles northeast of the Yemen capital Sana'a.

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

Lurkers, The current pronunciation of the location and tribal area is said to be Nihm (usually vocalised as NIHM or NEHEM or NAHM), and is documented by Warren and Michaela Aston who wrote the mormon article that started this farce. As usual, DU is shooting arrows and drawing the circles around them. The authors of the report agree with what I said.

Then find me one, just one other location on the map that fits, find me another "Bountiful" that fits.

Since Smith had access to a map, it is probable he used it. As far a bountiful really able to do what the bom says, well we’ll look at that later on in this post.

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.

Dissmissial a priori, by all equal application of archaeological practice, there should be tons of evidence. Where is it? DU sez check the UFO websites.

Um it has tropical rain forests -- Forests = Trees.

Go back to geography 101 DUh. There are no tropical rain forests at that latitude (First hint – deserts). Have you ever been in a rain forest DU? I have and what is pictured does not even come close to that definition. Palm/date trees do not make a rainforest. The vegitation of an oasis does not make a rainforest.

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.

Where, where are the iron ore bodies at DU? You just can’t dig anywhere and get iron. You fail geology 101 too DU, I have a mining geology background DU, so you’ll have to do better than that. Deserts preserve things like mines and residue from smelting – where has that been found? Furthermore, you gotta have some tools in order to make the tools to begin with. Where did Nephi get those tools? You just don’t toss the ore into a fire and out pop tools LOL. You’re drowning again DU.

GZ . . . . . . . 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!

Wow, this really had me concerned. DU actually provided a link to support his allegations. Read’em and weep - from the Chapman Research Group – impressive sounding name, until one finds that the author is a physicist and has done no primary research in the subjects, only copied and compiled other stories. Not a real vertabrate palontology or zoology or similar publication but a site but by an amateur. This is a psudoscholarly site that only quote mines and does no origional research. This is the kind of source spoken of by Sorenson:

First, they train the reader that serious, critical thought is unnecessary and maybe even undesirable, that any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable, and that logical absurdity is as good as sound analysis. Second, the reader gets the false impression that all is well in Zion, that the outside world is being forced to the LDS point of view, and that the only role LDS scholars need play in Book of Mormon-related studies is to use scissors and paste effectively. Third, the underlying complexity and subtlety of the Book of Mormon are masked by a pseudo-scholarship to which everything is simple. (John L. Sorenson, “Instant Expertise on Book of Mormon Archaeology,” BYU Studies 16:3 (Spring, 1976), p. 429.)

Gee, this also sounds like the stuff you continue to post and cite DU - any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable. Lookie here DU – he’s talking to you.

a site called "Horses and The Book of Mormon"

The link leads to a FR article which was listed as unavailable, but googling the title lead to FARMS/Maxwell report by a Robert Bennett. In the first paragraph, he counters DU by saying The Book of Mormon mentions horses, yet these animals seem not to have been known to native Americans who greeted the Spaniards upon their arrival in the New World in the sixteenth century. Moreover, archaeological evidence for the presence of the horse in the pre-Columbian Americas is presently scant and inconclusive. Here their argument breaks down with the old horse is a horse of course, of course, except when it is a tapir. One could hardly fault Old World visitors to the New World for choosing to classify the Mesoamerican tapir as a horse or an ass, if that is what happened.

Horse

Tapir

Right, some one from Israel where there are horses classifying a tapir as a horse.

which is the first site that comes up when you search on horses in ancient Americas,

Oh another reference to Chapman, looks like all three are. Psst DU, they are not archaeologists, they are quote miners. If their evidence so solid, FARMS/Maxwell wouldn’t have to be spinning horses as tapirs now would they?

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.

Like this one showing they became extinct by 10,000 B.C (woops not around for Nephi)
Or these archaeologists here

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.

No we will find such claims by mormons exactly what Sorenson condemns: any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable. The Texas State U and National Geographic studies are done by real people doing primary research, not quote mining by Chapman Inst.

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!)

Once again, if science, where are the listing of published studies proving those things. A guy can stand up and do a youtube presentation now a days. It is absolutely worthless with out documentary support.

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).

We are not talking about a spiritual truth here DU, we are talking about a book that claims to document the history and origins of the native americans 600 BC – 400 AD. Paul made the solid connection – that if Jesus did not rise from the dead (a statement of fact) then our faith (spiritual truth) is in vain. 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.

That document is already been invalidated by the 2009 findings that included the Sorenson genetic institute. The fact that you don’t bother to examine further (dusty journal of Genetics) shows just how shallow you efforts are. I’ve found and linked plenty of peer reviewed documents and studies, and they continually show mormon interpretation to be wrong.

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

He is speaking as an apologetic for the disappearing field of bom dna studies. In the first several seconds they attack Southerton and others, so his talk would be directed in support of that. It isn’t rocket science to discern that.

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!

DU, a little honesty here is applicable, this is what he says right at the very beginning

The most recent DNA evidence that I’ve seen, in terms of peopling of the Americas, shows this Middle Eastern haplotype at greatest frequencies in the Mayan people; so if that’s your perception of where Lehi and company set up shop then the DNA evidence would be consistent with that.

What Middle Eastern haplotype is he talking about DU, did you pay that much attention? mtDNA X. As I pointed out earlier he references (and misrepresents) Rosenberg’s 2005 study for his evidence. As I’ve already pointed out the 2009 study involving the Sorenson institute makes it very clear that any X is Mayan populations is NOT related to the middle east. This was known and available to him by a 2003 study stating the same. Nothing like repeating myself, but as long as you want to be obtuse about it, I’ll continue to show that he is refuted. The 2009 study kills Crandall’s argument. Now who is selectively using studies DU?

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!

According to the bom. peoples that came over in 600 BC were all of middle eastern descent, characterized by the mtDNA X group. They would be conservative because every one they’d marry was of middle eastern descent. They could marry who ever, they’d all carry the same genetic markers.

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?

Such a disengenous statement DU. You didn’t even bother to read it, are you that afraid that your testimony would be hurt? Your prophets challenged all to test the bom by other than a warm fuzzy. It is tested and found totally void of truth.

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

And I see that the Smithsonian and National Geo Society are jumping all over the place to use it – NOT. They specifically state the opposite. Shoot an arrow, draw circle, repeat as often as necessary to keep the sheeple in line.

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.

LOL, I’m not too impressed by your high priestly tone of voice DU. An advanced civilization in the middle of an existing well-developed civilization (if we assume LGT) and no mention of each other, nada, zero, zilch. No, I think that deliberately ignoring ground truth in favor of a subjective experience endangers you more than me. No evidence of any influence of a pre-colombian Christian culture - period.

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

Lurkers, in Part 1 I told you to expect this. DU goes to plan B and attempts to attack the authenticity of the Bible – hey I thought you said mormons didn’t do that kind of thing LOL.

As usual your scholarship is shoddy and the whole letter can be found here. It also states On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testiment, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Greek Histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. Woops DUh, I’d throw ya a rope to save you from drowning in your half-inch deep apologetics, but you keep trying to hang yourself with it. If there ever was evidence that you are off your script, this is it. Take the time to scroll down at the same link above, and you can compare the Smithsonian’s statement on the bom to their statement on the Bible.

OK, Let's take apart your broadside of weaponry terms: . . . native weapon espada, "sword." The Aztec name was macuahuitl (pronounced "mah-kwah-weetl") or macana.

The Spanish had no other word they could come up with at the time, the Aztec made theirs clear. Did Nephi have the same in Israel – NO. That metal craft was alledgedly brought to the new world. A stick with obsidian chips does not equal the description from the bom, no matter how you spin it. Same goes for Symitars.

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 found copper axeheads, arrow heads, etc.
..

Copper was easy, it has been shown they took native copper from the great lakes region. AFA AAAAA, it places a great deal of other emphasis on Burrows cave – a long running fraud. It makes the interpretation of the other data highly suspect.

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!)

There would be images of them – any found – no. Chariots require roads, not foot paths present. No horses either – not sure the tapirs would make a good pull for a chariot either.

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)

Which is a flawed translation of the Hebrew word nĕchuwshahin the KJV which properly translated is bronze, not steel. Its that properly translated thing.. There is no room in the bom for a similar translation issue
“And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war--yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war. (Jarom 1:8)



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.

You are drowning again, having to inflate your testimony.

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

The bom NEVER mentions pre-colombian amerindian cultures in existance. Historical teaching reinforces the empty story: "The Lord took every precaution to see that nothing might interfere with this posterity of Joseph in working out their God-given destiny and the destiny of America. He provided, and so told Lehi at the very beginning of his settlement, that: . . it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations ; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. (2 Nephi 1:8.) The Lord so kept the land for a thousand years after Lehi landed. He so kept it in His wisdom for another thousand years after the Nephites were destroyed, perhaps to give the Lamanitish branch another chance."
- Apostle J. Reuben Clark, "Prophecies, Penalties, and Blessings," Improvement Era, 1940, v. xliii., July 1940. no. 7

It is the simple fact that the Hemispheric Geographists have held to an empty america theory. So which of the 4 theories I’m aware of is true DU, then we can evaluate further if it was empty or not. Otherwise you need to explain why there is no record, nada, zero, zilch evidence in pre-Colombian cultures present in the Central America region. OH, and smith said they landed in Chile, they would have had to encounter lots of others enroute to their postage stamp sized land.

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

The bom says these same people came from Jerusalem – hint middle eastern genetics.

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

It is the old repeat a lie often enough. I have shown you, from the bom, where the peoples you’ve listed reportedly came from. In all cases it is a middle east source.

Therefore, who cares about the gastrointestinal parasites of petrified poo? Capisce?

Lurkers will note that DU is a one note johnny, cannot assimulate other sources of scientific investigation that shows the amerindians are asian, not hebrews. It is evident from the comment here that DU didn’t even bother to read the information presented. See, it would take him off his script – since FARMS and other apologists cannot provide rebuttals.

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.)

For starters, if you weren’t so lazy you would have read that the bacteria is within the stomach, not the poo. 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. Gut is different from poo. This is a different study, further supports the migration from Siberia – not Israel. But then don’t let the facts confuse you, you have a testimony.

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.

So some how these middle easterners swapped out their stomach bacteria for strains only found in asia.

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?)

Who came from Jerusalem, so not proven 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.

You’ve been telling one all along, a very bad piece of fiction at that.

End Part 2 of 3

[Godzilla]

Part 3 of 3

The blood typing was an example of a corrupted source, which you have never addressed.

Apples to oranges. Blood typing is defined by certain proteins, called antigens, on your red blood cells. DNA testing is based on a molecular level study that doesn’t get corrupted in the manner you described.

I will address your DNA issues as soon as you address the corrupted and diluted DNA that I have pointed out until then your conclusions are moot.

DU, still way off your written program, since you compare DNA to blood typing. You have yet to address the fact that the scientific community continues in these studies DUh. They meet the standard necessary to conduct and publish their research under the review of their peers. Where are the mormon apologists responses in these open publications? They are not there. Woodward at the mormon Sorensen Genetics labs do these same DNA testing and analysis, their results published in open peer reviewed papers and journals show that your little hoop is either fictitious or not difficult to deal with in the scientific world. Your little rant only goes to show your inability or unwillingness to look outside of your safe little box at reality.

As I stated earlier, the DNA tests only matter if you start with a clean sample, and keep it clean as you go, they didn't do either.

I cited numerous studies, as recent as this year, show me where mormon DNA experts have open published that the 2009 study was flawed in this aspect (OOPs, mormon DNA experts were involved in that study).

OK, let's talk Mitochondria, it's only passed by women to all their children (male and female) and it only is a good trace if you don't add other women from outside the group being traced, oops Well there goes that one.

And where did these women come from. The bom documents that all that came to the new world in the Nephi era were from the vicinity of Israel, of semitic people groups. They would be carrying common mtDNA. Since the native Americans, according to the bom, originated form this group, even if one woman carried something other than X, there would be an overwhelming abundance of X still. One foreign women would not be able to produce enough mtDNA to so overwhelm the Amerindian population genetic base to eliminate evidences of semitic X. Saying that he was a "Pure descendant of Lehi" can only mean it was possible not to be a descendant of Lehi, or a partial descendant.

Well DUH, DUh, I explained that several times now. So none of his predecessors interbred with Lamanites. Further a reflection on that white and delightsome aspect of mormonism.

What is that? Is that supposed to make me mad? LOL! I am never "on script" I do all my writing on my own and don't rely on anti sites to feed me issues.

Every one of those groups had their alleged origin in the area of Israel and would have carried semitic DNA markers. No, your sites represent data presented before UFO conventions. LOL

You said htat before, I debunked it before. The book of Mormon says the exact opposite, there were people here when they got here, and Nephi knew more would come.

Jaredites killed themselves off. The others that came all came from the area of Israel and environs. Sez so right in the bom if you bothered to read it.

One of the First groups they found was the people of Zarahemla: Omni 1:14

and from the verse immediately following
15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of aZarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that bZedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.

They were Jews too, imagine that DUh, and would be carring the Jewish DNA markers.

So Zoram being a slave could have been African, or Asian, or whatever and bingo corrupted genome. My point is since you don't know, you can't prove a negative.

Since you are arguing mtDNA issues, where Zoram came from is moot, as a man he cannot pass mtDNA. As the sole man in the midst of Jew/semities, it is improbable that his genetic Y chromosome patter would overwhelm that of the multiple other men there to the point that Laban’s genes would not be detectable, but Zorams would.

I'm sorry which is it, science or religion? Of yeah, flat Earthers think they are the same thing. So once it's proven by science, it's OK with the faith, I got it.

Hard science (DNA testing) supported the Lemba. Nothing similar supports los lunas.

Godzilla, before you can even hope to address the results of a test, you must first asses what you are trying to find, which is the DNA that went on the trip, and if you don't know what even some of that DNA was, well you don't know waht to look of and will not even know if you find it.

DU, your ignorance of such basic issues is incredible. Had you bothered to read even the abstracts of the articles (which are neutral, advocating no religious perspective), it would be quickly evident that the DNA studies in the Americas were done in conjunction with those in Asia and the rest of the world. Here is an entry level site that gives you that context you are denying DU.

Until the issue of who's DNA started toward America is resolved and DNA results is a case of having the cart before the horse.

To the lurkers out there, here is clearly demonstrated a refusal to even evaluate the independent (not from either a pro- or anti- websource) the very exact issue DU demands be answered – who’s DNA started to America. This article that I have cited now for the third time includes member participation from the mormon Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a pdf of the whole paper is available at this link. From the summary It is widely accepted that the ancestors of Native Americans arrived in the New World via Beringia approximately 10 to 30 thousand years ago (kya)., now note that mormon DNA experts signed on to this statement as co-authors. Their report goes into greater detail on the “from where” aspect too. The evidence of his denial are evident in his next statement.

<--Skipping all the Irrelevant DNA studies that can't be useful because we did not start at the beginning -->

A 2009 study that answers the question out of the starting gate can hardly be considered irrelevant except to misdirect one’s attention onto a question that has already been answered now three times. The people at the Nat’l Geo Genome project laugh at methodology like yours.

It's not "Yeh Buts", but "So whats" The results you are getting are consistent with what I would expect from what I read in the Book of Mormon, Hence, the So what? factor.

The so-whats lurkers, go right to the focus of DUs arguments that he gets off of mormon apologetic sites – that presence of mtDNA haplogroup X in some Amerindian groups (particularly Mayan descendants) shows the bom to be true. That is what the youtube series he always points to argues. The fact that the 2009 study directly addresses the X factor and clearly identifies that the specific subgroup, X2a, is not related to Middle Eastern origins strips away the video’s arguments. The further fact that numerous studies had already come to the same conclusions prior to the video show the willingness, just like what DU is doing here, to avoid the scientific evidence that dismantles their arguments only to continue to play a one note Johnny that it is still there.

Now I know why these get so long... you wast a lot of time getting personal... (and no, I am not going to report you, i think it detracts from your argument, please, keep doing it.)

Oh my, pointing out that once you are force away from your apologetics websites to address secular, independent studies conducted with the proper controls you demand and these same studies are done in cooperation with mormon genetic researchers is personal. Address the studies which you haven’t read.

You know, I'd love to see you convince a real population Geneticist of that. (Hey we can find whatever you want in your DNA for a little extra... LOL!)

You are speaking now of laboratory controls. Prove the 2009 study failed to execute proper controls. I do reports regularly that involve chemical sample analysis, included in each report are laboratory QC reports and methodology sections. Analytical procedures are very structured by various agencies to insure uniform results and are one of the key areas scientists look if unconvinced of the authenticity of a study’s findings. That’s a component of peer review DU, if the lab standards are shoddy, the study is hammered early and often withdrawn if it even makes it to publication in the first place. The reputations of these scientists depend on those procedures to be correct. So to make the flippant remark that you do only confirms that you don’t know what you are talking about because it isn’t covered in you mormon apologetic site.

Someone needs a refresher course on DNA, read this --> complex genetic testing involving autosomal DNA: The Mitochondria DNA would only be preserved intact if there were no women from outside the Group included. There were such women from the very beginning.

Nice to see you actually trying to go outside of the box. Never the less, your statement is flawed from the beginning. mtDNA would only be preserved and continued as long as daughters were borne. As the following figure from the referenced page shows

Shows the addition of other women does not eliminate the mtDNA from the line. A simple application. A founding group containing 4 women, 3 of which are of semitic background (hap X) one outsider (Hap A). Assuming a 50/50 boy girl mix and a family of 4 (low for mormons and peoples of the culture indicated), that would yield in the first generation 6 women with X, 2 with A. The next generation that would go to 12 with X, 4 with A. Next generation goes to 24 with X, 8 with A. Lurkers can easily see where this is going. Instead of not preserving the group X, it would expand significantly, regardless of the presence of an A. DU’s assertion that the page shows otherwise is completely unfounded by both the page itself and common sense.

GZ The Bom and mormon teaching say that the continent was empty for Nephi, et al.
That is completely false.

Oh I forgot, you are one of those LGT types. Which of the four competing theories is correct and sanctioned by the mormon church DU. If there were others here DU from asia and your assumption is that their DNA overwhelmed the semitic DNA, your own scripture speak otherwise DU. Israelite Lehi was the ancestor of all native Americans (for example, see D&C 3:18-20; 19:27; 28:8; 54:8; 57). One cannot be the ancestor of all native Americans if your genetics have been washed out by a numerically superior group of native Americas already here. One or the other is lying – Church history canonized in the D&C passages, or your LGT?

The people of Zarahemla who's ancestry we don't know...

What part of Israelites from Jerusalem do you not understand (see earlier)?

Let me try: DNA population studies deal with cohesive populations (ethnic groups having the same Identity) and how those people keep their identity when physically moved to a new location by being genetically conservative.

Your understanding of population genetic studies is definitively malnourished. You need to spend some time reading the Nat’l Geo Genome project site linked earlier. There is no requirement for a population to be conservative. Read it and learn a thing or two.

Yeah, that would work, except that's not what we have, slaves are not always, or even often of the same genetic ethnic groups as the slave owner. Can you hear me now?

Moses allowed for bond slaves, Israelites that were indentured to a master. That was to be broken upon the Jubilee year – rarely ever followed by the Jews. However, as indicated above with my mtDNA growth, a single outsider cannot overwhelm the whole group’s DNA markers under normal circumstances. The only way would to be the only one to mate with the women. However, while that may control the Y chromosome markers, it will do absolutely nothing to the mtDNA markers that would continue to multiply.

Actually, that is not true. If you assume the America's was completely unpopulated, and no-one else came from anywhere else... Then maybe you'll find something recognizable, maybe.

Again, only in the LGT scheme. But then that violates the interpretation of D&C cited above. Lehi cannot have been the ancestor of the Amerindians if the Amerindians were already present in great numbers in the new world. So one is lying, D&C with mormon history or LGT.

But since the Book of Mormon says there were other people (several times in fact) and they just keep adding them in,

In each instance you cited, the corresponding verses from the bom all indicated that they were either jews from Jerusalem or in the case of Mulek, a jew, son of Zedikiah. So please, keep your genetics straight. Population genetics, Jews from Israel (an ethnically identifiable group for DNA purposes) mix with other Jews from Israel and what would be predicted – DNA markers representative of Jews from Israel, with perhaps a scattering of non-jewish DNA (if there were women slaves, but minority) or male Y data.

and since we know the vikings had an outpost here for a while and the Spaniards and the Europeans were happily married into the Indian population

Yep and population geneticists are able to sort them out, imagine that.

I submit that you have no evidence supporting a genetically conservative people, and since the Book of Mormon lists some descendants of Ishmael

Ishmael – a semitic descendant of Abraham, would still carry semitic DNA markers, interbreeding among the Nephi/Lehi group would still preserve and expand the Jewish DNA markers, not erase it.

I.. I look Deep really, stop calling me shallow you big, you big bully you Bwahhhaa! LOL! I think the amount of links and evidence I include in my posts and the amount of links and evidence you include in your posts speaks for itself.

Why yes it does DU, the fact that you collect your data from UFO affiliated websites, and only pro mormon sites to the exclusion of independent, secular scientific studies not involved in the mormon dna debate, yet who’s studies answer mormon claims just goes to confirm the observation. Yep, my observations about the depth of your research are well founded.

Can you please point me to the "Common Mormon Dictionary"? LOL!

Just as soon as you can point me to the officially sanctioned mormon version of new world population DU.

Let's take Keith Crandall, . . . If things hold true to form antis will be cursing his name until and unless he leaves the church and fights against it, then all will be forgiven by the antis and he will be their darling.

I’m not cursing Crandall, I am identifying the flaws in his (and his cohorts in the video) representation of the state of DNA studies and the origins of the Amerindians. I linked a 2003 study that showed the answer to the mtDNA challenge me made from just one study and followed it up with a 2009 study that further confirmed it. So no need to curse, his analysis has already been disproven. The 2009 report included Scott R. Woodward, former head of DNA studies at BYU and now leading Sorenson lab (which is recognized as having one of the largest DNA databases of the new world). Crandall was foolish to participate in the video and the resulting poor scholarship discredits his accomplishments in the field. Your silence on those reports speak volumes to the lurkers here DU.

Actually, the Book of Mormon means exactly what it says, but not if you pick one scripture out of a chapter and ignore the ones around it, speaking of selective Citations...

: Just like your selective citing Omni

GZ Fact is that they are identified in vs 9 - those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem, you know that context thing. Common usage of the term nations also preclude others The fact that your interpretation doesn't hold water to what Smith taught (something about the original intent of the author)
LOL! Like you would know the original intent of the author, you think Joseph smith was the author, LOL! (do you know what a begging the question is?), that and calling your suppositions facts is just funny, please keep it amusing!

Again, context of the passage. The whole context of the bom is the diaspora of a group of Jew to the Americas. That is the fundamental message of smith from day one. You argue that the jewish DNA markers are washed out by pre-existing Amerindians, but your own scriptures deny that (D&C) declaring Lehi the ancestor of the amerindians. Can’t have both du.

Tower of Babel which was when? Before Jacob was born, surely you are not going to say he would have the DNA of people he might or might not be related to...

First, they were from the middle east area (Babylon), but that doesn’t matter as they were all killed off except for one man. That is DNA extinction.

15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.
We just don't know, we can assume, but it throws the results of any DNA test into doubt.

The bom is clear that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem That would make them Jews or very closely related to the jews (as other semites would share the DNA markers).

The group that came with Lehi included a slave and his descendants, what makes you think the people of Zarahemla had pure DNA? Because it works for what you are trying to accomplish? Nice try... You keep demanding unbroken chains of evidence for proofs for the Book of Mormon, don't you think you should demand the same for proof against?

As shown earlier, even IF a slave was present and was not semitic, that one individual would be unable to wipe out the mtDNA of the Jewish women – simple DNA stuff DU, go back to the Sorenson site and review it. Same is true for Zarahemla – the bom states they came from Jerusalem at the same time as Lehi. Even worst case the vast majority of the DNA would contain the semitic DNA markers. If D&C is a true word from God, the Amerindians are descended from Lehi (why not the other groups DU?) and his DNA would be the dominant one.

This is precisely why I originally cited you for an Appeal to Ignorance, you see, your premise here seems to be that since we don't know, we can assume it is the way anti's want it to be..., and we just can't.

And you are misstating the exposition of that fallacy. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. Lehi claimed to be a Jew along with his family – positive evidence. Zarahemla residents were descended from another group that left Jerusalem, at worst case containing some non-Jewish people, but higher probability of those with semantic heritage – positive evidence. Mulek, was the on of Zedikiah , a jew – positive evidence. D&C as well as historical teachings of the prophets and apostles of the mormon church is that the Amerindians are descended from jewish or middle eastern ancestors. We have both Y chromosome and mtDNA data (plus a bunch of other related) that shows that the Amerindians are not descended from Jewish or Middle Eastern ancestors – positive evidence. The example from you link states that :

Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:
If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

DU likes to overlook the extensive investigation aspect. Contrary to DU’s misrepresentation of the DNA arguments against the bom it would read like this: If the Amerindians were descendants of Lehi (jewish / middle eastern) as canonized in their scripture and teachings of their prophets and apostles, we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We do not have undeniable evidence that Amerindians are descended from jewish / middle eastern ancestory, but do have undeniable evidence that the Amerindians are descended from asian people groups.
Therefore the scriptural teachings of mormonism regarding the origins of the Amerindian peoples is false.

That was the whole point of Keith Crandall's paper. You can't prove the Book of mormons false by it's own Tenets with DNA because there is too much ambiguity in where the people who populate the book come from, thus you just can't prove the negative.

Ambiguity equals smokescreen. The 2009 study accounted for the mayan dna issue Crandall cited, infact was already settled by another group of scientists in 2003. The only ambiguity is purposeful on the part of mormon apologists.

The positive on the other hand is still possible to prove, it just has not been. Again, Keith says that they Mayans are where you should start looking if you want to find that proof positive (which I personally believe will never happen)

Ah the hopeful dinosaur theory applied to mormonism and dna. The mayan data has already been accounted for by numerous reports so you will be waiting a REAL long time.

Mulek was indeed from Israel, as a son of Zedikiah, we can even be sure of his geneology, his companions on the trip, the people he picked up along the way... Well more questions marks I'm afraid.

See DU, for an example of Argument from Ignorance, you only need to look to your comment above. An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.

God answered and said it was his word. That's good enough for me. I'll stake not just my professional reputation, but my eternal salvation on God's word, you?

God answered my prayer, you don’t accept the answer, therefore you testimony hold no water as such over either myself or a moonie or a muslim.

It's not blindness, as soon as you have parties of people from differing times and of differing ancestry, some you are only told the leader's ancestry, you just don't have enough to perform a reliable genetic study from. Once again, numerous institutions are doing that, Nat’l Geo, Sorenson, and others. They apparently know more about it than you.

Gosh, I'm sorry, the book of Mormon wasn't written in a way that makes it easy to discredit, maybe it was written for spiritual reasons...

And from it the basis further canonized in D&C that the Amerindians were descendents of Jewish bloodlines. One or the other is telling the truth DU, if spiritual, then the ancestral claims are false (and all those Indian outreach programs and activities for the last 150 years bogus), or the really are descendants and the bom has a physical, historical component that can be evaluated.

>Then why did you say it was, go back and look, I was responding to you saying the Lamanites were a race...

I never said the lamanites were a race, but have always insisted that their dna and genetic history was no different that mormon.

There is the distinct possibility that Leah and Rachel had differing Mitochondrial DNA and therefore their descendants would have differing DNA too.

Argument from Ignorance again DU, argument by lack of evidence. Actually there is evidence, if you would bother to look for it.
Gen 29:10 And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother

I think even you can figure out the source of mtDNA from that one.

Sigh, it's not a spin, it's truth, just because you are from the middle east, does not mean you will have Jewish DNA, or all the Arabs would insist on blood transfusions and Gene therapy "now dang it NOW!"

I have used the terminology inter changeably. They are common to the semantic peoples. And once again, you show you don’t know what you are talking about by associating it with blood transfusions.

As for the Indians not being descendants, they are, just not direct - Exclusive, or Pure descendants, so?

Doesn’t affect the outcome, go back to the Sorenson site and trace the little figure a few more time to see your error.

So if I take your paper and present it at a UFO convention, you are less credible? You are more shallow than I thought.

It most certainly does make it less credible. There are multiple other outlets recognized for credibility – its called peer review work DU. Belief in little green men shows a mental instability and challenged thought processes – and those who seek credible information from those sites . . . . .
So you are back to square one DU, where is the evidence you claimed existed for the bom earthquakes etc. as you so boldly claimed existed. Or are you going to weasel out by saying the bom is a spiritual book and any such events only spiritual?

Ammoron is a descendant of Zoram, who was pressed into service in at jerusalem, great, and who might his ancestry be? We don't know.
Mulek - was a descendant of the house of Abraham, and his entourage? We don't know.

More arguments from ignorance DU as demonstrated earlier.

Why? Why would a scientist with everything to lose and nothing to gain ignore such evidence? Because after a careful analysis of the Book of Mormon, he determined that no DNA test could prove it wrong, that's why.

First, he’s a team player DU, his little temple recommend card and godhood status would be in jeopardy, as well as his cushy tenured position at byu. Secondly, the bible warns of deceiving spirits and not to test things subjectively, but objectively.

OK, you are a Geologist, if I tried to use some of your work to disagree with you about the probability of an oil deposit under a hill and you come along and look at my data and laugh out loud while saying there is no way there is oil there that's solid granite, and I disagree, who's gonna look silly?

First, from your argument, you would not understand the nature of the reports and work. Oil deposits have specific identifiers and geologic settings, as do granitic terrains. Geologists work with positive data first and foremost. So in your little example you would be the one looking silly to the rest of the world unless you are able to totally disprove my positive evidences with positive evidence of your own and convince the greater geologic community your interpretation is correct over mine. I see this general process working all the time in my daily work. Resolving conflicting data is part of the job, but usually that conflict is readily resolved by follow on data.

Southerton is a plant biologist for crying out loud he is as out of his depth with Popluation Genetics as I would be geology, quoting him is just like quoting from a UFO convention!

He is a molecular biologist who specializes in plants. Crandall is a population geneticists – who’s most of his work is with shell fish. Both are qualified to evaluate DNA data as it is core to both specialities.

So what? If you can't nail down that the group had a pure sample, you can't prove anything but a positive, the negative just has to many explanations.

Crandall tried to prove the presence of semitic DNA (mtDNA Group X) in mayans (“just have to know were to look”). The later, expanded study by Wang, which I have already cited and linked for you before, erased the ambiguities Crandall was using to justify his (mis)interpretation of Rosenberg’s study. If Crandall is willing to accept the Rosenberg study as it was (no quibbling about a ‘pure’ sample), maybe these geneticists don’t see that as a factor like you do, one note Du. Add to this the more specific 2009 study, endorsed by Sorensen labs, identifying the specific haplotype appearing in the mayans (as well as other Amerindians) as X2a, a group clearly not related to anything in the old world. Wow that hopeful mormon dinosaur is getting more and more remote. Yet mormonism claim Amerindians (you know, all those being tested in these studies), continues to believe that they are descendants of semitic peoples – argument in ignorance DU.

Yeah! Go get Him you geologist you! Wow, I wish I was an actor so I could comment on politics, or a Geologist so I could comment on DNA studies! (laughter echos)

Well I don’t rely upon ET to provide support for the bom either. So you disqualify you self from the discussion so readily, or is it because you are mormon that you are qualified?

Um, an Appeal to Authority is basically where the argument is made that an authority has already reviewed the case and decided, so there is no need to investigate further, it is meant to end discussion. I did not do that.

Wrong, you appealed to Crandall’s authority as the ultimate say on the subject.

Really? and here I thought the definition was "the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity."

Just a simple application that when the evidence continues to correlate and support the others, such as all the dna studies (Y and mtDNA, retro virus, bacterial, etc) all point to the same conclusion. . . . . it is not an introduction of additional introduced assumptions, the answer must meet the data. Not hard, do it almost every day.

It seems to me that you apply a lot of assumptions to get to a negative result on the DNA to prove the Book of Mormon wrong, hence Occam's razor keeps cutting you when you try to use it.

Only because you refuse to investigate these other, independent streams of data that are separate from the spoon feeding you receive from FARMS, et al. The mayans in particular have been intensely studied for a hundred years or so. There has yet to be shown conclusively that there has been any Hebrew influence or the existence of any Hebraic peoples in that part of the world in pre-colombian times. If you were to read these studies as I have, you would have see that your objections have been addressed and that the proposition that Amerindians are descendants of Hebraic people is untenable. Occams razor cuts you clearly on the maxim you cited above. Detailed DNA data shows no linkage to old world – DU/apologists introduce assumptions to meet the data (rather than data itself), such as small population group, D&C doesn’t really indicate the Amerindians have Hebraic ancestors, a horse is a tapir, just haven’t found the right site, etc.

Yet, I post hings that do show evidence, thus some exists, you just are not accepting it, which is perfectly OK with me. The problem is then you insist the reality bend to your opinion, and if just does not do that.

No DU, you’ve insisted that the lack of evidence is evidence.

LOL! When Genetic studies by a Population Geneticist are questions by a plant biologist as part of the argument against the Book of Mormon, the anti Mormons are truly bankrupt.

Then where is this experts published works setting forth that the DNA interpretations of the migration of Asia people groups which became the Amerindians are flawed because a group of peoples of middle eastern descent came over in 600BC and established a civilization until 400 AD, and left not one trace. Certainly when Crandall does that outside of FARMS/Maxwell I (and others) will take notice. If his understanding is so superior, why hasn’t this occurred.

Let's recap: until someone can show the genealogy of every one in all the groups that joined with Lehi back to someone in the house of Israel, then the sample is possibly corrupted.

The existing genetic studies do not need a pure sample. If that was the case studies and work by Nat’l Geo and Sorenson labs would be fraudulent. This assertion was further disproved by the study of the lemba tribe. As it is all they need is to distill the dna, examine its composition and structure and match its characteristics to the growing library of dna data from around the world.

A genetic sample from the house of Joseph (not Judah) is required to compare with the genetics of the descendants of Lehi in order to prove a negative.

Did they meet the equivalent standard with the Lemba tribe – NO. Were the data usable to show that they were descendants of Levi (Cohen lineage), most certainly yes. So your argument fails under recent practical application. Where was Crandall’s concerns about a pure sample of Levitical dna? (crickets)