Excellent takedown of Mopologist DNA misinformation

[huckelberry]

As I am not under a ban for AI use I asked Google what lds responses were for the Book of Mormon and DNA problem. I was supplied with standard comments from church sites about the DNA disappearing among all those Indians not mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

I think this would have more persuasive power if the Book of Mormon discussed the relationships with those people instead of being locked into a narrative with their complete absence.

North and South America had strong widespread civilizations predating the Book of Mormon which the book is unaware of.

[I Have Questions]

More “nothing.”

Subject to the rules of the board (unfortunately) and the parameters of participation that I've laid out for myself. That's why I encouraged others to go out and spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing their own research rather than basing their worldview on restricted/ limited information.

I'm perfectly comfortable in asking/recommending that people not listen to you (or the writer of a book) as the final authority.

I don't. And I didn't. That's why we are at different places in regards to testimony/faith/hope and belief in the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

Regards,
MG

Still nothing.

[malkie]

Subject to the rules of the board (unfortunately) and the parameters of participation that I've laid out for myself. That's why I encouraged others to go out and spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing their own research rather than basing their worldview on restricted/ limited information.

I'm perfectly comfortable in asking/recommending that people not listen to you (or the writer of a book) as the final authority.

I don't. And I didn't. That's why we are at different places in regards to testimony/faith/hope and belief in the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

Regards,
MG

Still nothing.

Wellllllll, not quite nothing.

There a good suggestion there that apparently if you "spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing [sic] [your] own research rather than basing [your] worldview on restricted/ limited information", you can ... ummm ... actually, I'm not quite sure what that qualifies or enables you to do, but I feel sure that it must be something worthwhile.

I did not know that. In fact, If I recall correctly, it flies in the face of claims by senior LDS apologists that you need academic credentials before you are fit to even discuss certain topics.

But superficially it sounds good.

I wonder if "doing [your] own research" involves asking AIs poorly thought out questions and fudging their responses. I wonder also, regardless of whether your own research involves google, or AIs, or a quick query to a real person with relevant expertise, just how the result is different from "basing [your] worldview on restricted/ limited information". I'll bet, however, that it involves TTOC. Anyway, it sounds fascinating.

[MG 2.0]

Still nothing.

Wellllllll, not quite nothing.

There a good suggestion there that apparently if you "spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing [sic] [your] own research rather than basing [your] worldview on restricted/ limited information", you can ... ummm ... actually, I'm not quite sure what that qualifies or enables you to do, but I feel sure that it must be something worthwhile.

I did not know that. In fact, If I recall correctly, it flies in the face of claims by senior LDS apologists that you need academic credentials before you are fit to even discuss certain topics.

But superficially it sounds good.

I wonder if "doing [your] own research" involves asking AIs poorly thought out questions and fudging their responses. I wonder also, regardless of whether your own research involves google, or AIs, or a quick query to a real person with relevant expertise, just how the result is different from "basing [your] worldview on restricted/ limited information". I'll bet, however, that it involves TTOC. Anyway, it sounds fascinating.

Not that long ago I repeatedly said that on a board such as this one, for various reasons already mentioned, MORE information is almost always better than less. Yes, that information should be vetted and then linked to original sources.

I would often use the phrase, "And I approve this message", attached to A.I. responses where analytic reasoning was performed by the A.I.

And yes, it does take only a few minutes to get an indication as to whether a poster's information might contain some holes that might need to be elaborated upon or filled in.

I would again encourage those interested to go back earlier in the thread and question some of the things that were said in regards to Southerton's research. Use A.I. as a quick tool and then look at sources referred to. There can be little, if any, downside with gathering more information than that which is provided by biased posters on a board populated mainly by critics who think they have the final word.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

And I still disagree with what you said at the time that I first disagreed with you.

[I Have Questions]

Wellllllll, not quite nothing.

There a good suggestion there that apparently if you "spend just a few minutes (that's all it takes) to doing [sic] [your] own research rather than basing [your] worldview on restricted/ limited information", you can ... ummm ... actually, I'm not quite sure what that qualifies or enables you to do, but I feel sure that it must be something worthwhile.

I did not know that. In fact, If I recall correctly, it flies in the face of claims by senior LDS apologists that you need academic credentials before you are fit to even discuss certain topics.

But superficially it sounds good.

I wonder if "doing [your] own research" involves asking AIs poorly thought out questions and fudging their responses. I wonder also, regardless of whether your own research involves google, or AIs, or a quick query to a real person with relevant expertise, just how the result is different from "basing [your] worldview on restricted/ limited information". I'll bet, however, that it involves TTOC. Anyway, it sounds fascinating.

Not that long ago I repeatedly said that on a board such as this one, for various reasons already mentioned, MORE information is almost always better than less. Yes, that information should be vetted and then linked to original sources.

I would often use the phrase, "And I approve this message", attached to A.I. responses where analytic reasoning was performed by the A.I.

And yes, it does take only a few minutes to get an indication as to whether a poster's information might contain some holes that might need to be elaborated upon or filled in.

I would again encourage those interested to go back earlier in the thread and question some of the things that were said in regards to Southerton's research. Use A.I. as a quick tool and then look at sources referred to. There can be little, if any, downside with gathering more information than that which is provided by biased posters on a board populated mainly by critics who think they have the final word.

Regards,
MG

You are still contributing nothing to this thread.

[MG 2.0]

Not that long ago I repeatedly said that on a board such as this one, for various reasons already mentioned, MORE information is almost always better than less. Yes, that information should be vetted and then linked to original sources.

I would often use the phrase, "And I approve this message", attached to A.I. responses where analytic reasoning was performed by the A.I.

And yes, it does take only a few minutes to get an indication as to whether a poster's information might contain some holes that might need to be elaborated upon or filled in.

I would again encourage those interested to go back earlier in the thread and question some of the things that were said in regards to Southerton's research. Use A.I. as a quick tool and then look at sources referred to. There can be little, if any, downside with gathering more information than that which is provided by biased posters on a board populated mainly by critics who think they have the final word.

Regards,
MG

You are still contributing nothing to this thread.

The same might be said for you. Although, let it be said, I have suggested a productive avenue that one might take rather than listening to you as Supreme Authority.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

You are still contributing nothing to this thread.

The same might be said for you. Although, let it be said, I have suggested a productive avenue that one might take rather than listening to you as Supreme Authority.

Regards,
MG

Put your money where your mouth is - post those quotes from those geneticists you mentioned that you said had rebuttals to Southerton’s arguments, instead of telling everyone else to do it for you. You won’t because they don’t exist and you’re too damn lazy to go looking for any that might.

6,306 posts now. Prolific!!!

[MG 2.0]

The same might be said for you. Although, let it be said, I have suggested a productive avenue that one might take rather than listening to you as Supreme Authority.

Regards,
MG

Put your money where your mouth is - post those quotes from those geneticists you mentioned that you said had rebuttals to Southerton’s arguments, instead of telling everyone else to do it for you. You won’t because they don’t exist and you’re too damn lazy to go looking for any that might.

6,306 posts now. Prolific!!!

No one has to do it for me. And yes, the arguments do exist. You can also do your own research for yourself.

Don't do it for me. I did it for myself and came away knowing that I hadn't gotten the full scoop from you.

Let me ask you this. Wouldn't you encourage others to do their own research? My point earlier is that now where A.I. use is prohibited in any way shape or form we are severely limited on this board. You can say pretty much whatever you want to and get away with it.

As I said, I am...at this point...not going to feel obligated to answer all of your inquiries or offer 'proofs' for everything that I disagree with. I can, however, do it for myself and come back and suggest that others do a simple search to determine whether or not you're telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I'm not going to spend all the time necessary to rebut every falsehood you put out there. I WAS able to do a MUCH better job of doing so with the help of A.I.

You could see that and so you fought tooth and nail to get rid of that option. And then you bellyache that I won't take the time to go in depth with you on any one topic. And the crazy thing is, you don't feel obligated to answer ANY of my questions. Why should I keep catering to yours?

What I can do is give reason to others to follow up on your posts and the jaundiced views you present. I've taken SO MUCH time with you. And you were going to set me to ignore and not engage me anymore.

What happened there? I wish you would follow through on your commitment. Essentially you are a waste of my time. But I feel as though I can't simply let you get away with some of your crap. So I found a shortcut that actually works. A.I. provided that shortcut. And then it was mixed.

Oh well.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Put your money where your mouth is - post those quotes from those geneticists you mentioned that you said had rebuttals to Southerton’s arguments, instead of telling everyone else to do it for you. You won’t because they don’t exist and you’re too damn lazy to go looking for any that might.

6,306 posts now. Prolific!!!

No one has to do it for me. And yes, the arguments do exist. You can also do your own research for yourself.

Don't do it for me. I did it for myself and came away knowing that I hadn't gotten the full scoop from you.

Let me ask you this. Wouldn't you encourage others to do their own research? My point earlier is that now where A.I. use is prohibited in any way shape or form we are severely limited on this board. You can say pretty much whatever you want to and get away with it.

As I said, I am...at this point...not going to feel obligated to answer all of your inquiries or offer 'proofs' for everything that I disagree with. I can, however, do it for myself and come back and suggest that others do a simple search to determine whether or not you're telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I'm not going to spend all the time necessary to rebut every falsehood you put out there. I WAS able to do a MUCH better job of doing so with the help of A.I.

You could see that and so you fought tooth and nail to get rid of that option. And then you bellyache that I won't take the time to go in depth with you on any one topic. And the crazy thing is, you don't feel obligated to answer ANY of my questions. Why should I keep catering to yours?

What I can do is give reason to others to follow up on your posts and the jaundiced views you present. I've taken SO MUCH time with you. And you were going to set me to ignore and not engage me anymore.

What happened there? I wish you would follow through on your commitment. Essentially you are a waste of my time. But I feel as though I can't simply let you get away with some of your crap. So I found a shortcut that actually works. A.I. provided that shortcut. And then it was mixed.

Oh well.

Regards,
MG

All that effort to post all that, yet cannot bring yourself to find and post a quote from one of those geneticists you said have some rebuttals for Southerton’s points. Not. One. Quote. You’re too damn lazy to contribute.