Keith A. Crandall's Careless DNA Claims

[_Tobin]

No. You are just misconstruing my statements and when I clarify you fail repeatedly to respond in any meaningful way to what I've said.

How am I misconstruing your statements?

I explained my position below.

Not at all. I stand by the very reasonable position that science should be not be engaged in dictating to people which religious beliefs are valid or not. And that it is not appropriate for scientists to do so in their professional pursuits. And the fact you can't acknowledge or quickly agree with my position is rather comical to me actually.

Reasonable because you say so?

Can you explain what is unreasonable about what I've said in the slightest?

No one in this thread is agreeing you and I've not seen you post any authority on the matter.

And I'm not impressed by argumentum ad populum.

All I've seen you do is dodge and refuse to acknowledge the issues I've clearly stated to you. Instead of demonstrating the intellectual honesty of recognizing the problem, you instead just dismiss and ignore it. If all you wish to do is engage in a distortion of my positions, I fail to see the point of your posts?

What have I dodged or refused to acknowledge?

I've repeatedly asked you some rather pointed questions. If you'd mind responding in any reasonable way to them, I'd appreciate that.

I have no intention of distorting your positions and if I'm misstating or misunderstanding something, you are always welcome to clarify your position. In follow-up, do you believe that science should be engaged in the business of telling people what religious beliefs are valid or not? Are scientists to be the arbitrators of truth?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Science aims to uncover truth. This often involves dispelling myth, whether the myths be old wives tales (cold temperature causes colds, you'll go blind if you masturbate too much, etc.), superstitions or religious claims. If we don't debunk what isn't true then what is the point of learning more about the world in which we live?

Again, do you believe that science should be engaged in the business of telling people what religious beliefs are valid or not?

Your version of science seems to somehow operate in a vacuum. We do research but we don't apply it to anything...it makes no sense.

No. Those engaged in science should be determining facts using valid methods. They should not be engaging in religious beliefs in their research. I think such endeavors are perilous and inappropriate.

Scientists themselves are obviously not the arbitrators of truth, nor does Simon claim to be. However, when credible studies are done that evidence the truth or untruth of certain claims, we should be talking about it.

I don't find misapplying studies and the ramifications of those studies to be a credible use. Do you?

So, for example, if a study has determined that the DNA of Native Americans does not includes any middle eastern DNA from the period of the Book of Mormon (of course unless it is some really tiny group somewhere that remains to be tested - but that doesn't really agree with the Book of Mormon itself), not only is it okay for a scientist to point that out, they SHOULD be doing so. Who wants to believe something that is demonstrably false? You know that it is the DNA studies that caused the church to change the introduction to the Book of Mormon...

Again, as I've said, that is not what the purpose was of these studies. Now, if someone believes that the groups tested had some contact with the supposed Book of Mormon people, that is clearly not the case. But that is all this demonstrates.

[_Themis]

I stand by the very reasonable position that science should be not be engaged in dictating to people which religious beliefs are valid or not.

If this were truly his view, Tobin would be condemning Crandall for dictating a religious belief that pre-Columbian Maya would share DNA with the Hebrew peoples. He would also be praising Southerton for pointing out to Crandall (originally in private and now in public once Crandall refused to consider the science in favor of his previous religious-based assertions) where more current scientific research unrelated to religion shows Crandall is misrepresenting the science to make a claim that a certain religious belief is valid based on scientific research.

Tobin's bias and extreme ignorance is why we see him keep typing non-sense. Crandall doesn't have this excuse other then his bias. His advantage is that DNA is a complicated issue that most know little about it. Since he has the credentials he can say pretty much what he wants outside of his scientific circles without getting much attention from colleges, and many members will eat it up without much skepticism. If people at fair and farms won't challenge him, and even promote what he says, then some like Simon who understand the science should. Tobin should be praising Simon, but he is far to biased and has a major lack of understanding science in general to know better. I suspect a number of apologists do understand enough, but play by rules of not attacking what they view as on their team. I have more respect for those who want to get things right.

[_Arrakis]

Tobin's bias and extreme ignorance is why we see him keep typing non-sense.

Nope.....Tobin is just trolling the thread.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

I explained my position below.

No, you didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Can you explain what is unreasonable about what I've said in the slightest

I've already explained. Science uncovers truth. It is entirely reasonable to use science to prove that claims that have been made a false. Many scientists do this. To say that scientists should not concern themselves with religious claims is as absurd as saying that scientists shouldn't concern themselves with bold but unsubstantiated medical claims. Extraordinary claims need to be addressed. Your position is quite simply absurd. You're just trying to give religious claims some sort of immunity from scrutiny.

And I'm not impressed by argumentum ad populum.

You ignored the second half of my sentence "I've not seen you post any authority on the matter"

You aren't seriously expecting me to just embrace your views of science, are you?

I've repeatedly asked you some rather pointed questions. If you'd mind responding in any reasonable way to them, I'd appreciate that.

Would you mind reminding me what those are? I thought I'd responded to all of your questions.

Again, do you believe that science should be engaged in the business of telling people what religious beliefs are valid or not?

Scientists can do that. And there is no particular reason why they shouldn't if the evidence leads to that conclusion. Plenty of respected scientists do so.

No. Those engaged in science should be determining facts using valid methods.

Who says this isn't happening? You can't just throw out baseless accusations.

They should not be engaging in religious beliefs in their research. I think such endeavors are perilous and inappropriate.

Who says this is happening?

I don't find misapplying studies and the ramifications of those studies to be a credible use. Do you?

How are the studies being misapplied? You still haven't explained this.

Again, as I've said, that is not what the purpose was of these studies. Now, if someone believes that the groups tested had some contact with the supposed Book of Mormon people, that is clearly not the case. But that is all this demonstrates.

The purpose of the studies is to determine the DNA of Native Americans. That entitles people like Simon who are qualified to interpret the studies to make the type of statements he has made. You believe that they have to test every single inhabitant of North America. This is due to your lack of understanding of the methodology of the study and of the science itself, as well as your lack of understanding of what the Book of Mormon claims itself. If you can't get your head around this, I'm afraid this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

[_DrW]

If you can't get your head around this, I'm afraid this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

Ya think?

[_Equality]

If you can't get your head around this, I'm afraid this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

Ya think?

And thus this discussion ends precisely the same way every other discussion with Tobin ends (if, mercifully, it actually has ended).

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

Ya think?

And thus this discussion ends precisely the same way every other discussion with Tobin ends (if, mercifully, it actually has ended).

Don't count on it

[_Quasimodo]

If you can't get your head around this, I'm afraid this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

Ya think?

Ha! Another victim.

Sorry, GrandMoffTarkin. Since you are new here (welcome, by the way) you can't be blamed for falling into a Tobin trap. We have all been there.

I'm one of the honored ones that has been put on Tobiningnore. I think it was because I pointed out to him once that he really has no friends on this board.

I've come to the conclusion that Tobin isn't really interested in facts or any particular point of view. He just likes attention, even if it's negative attention (maybe especially negative attention). There may be something pathological about that.

I've seen him engage his circular logic with some innocent posters to consume 16 or 18 pages on a thread he has hijacked.

They all tend to resemble this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&feature=kp

I have no doubt that you will tire of it soon enough and move on to more interesting board members.

[_Tator]

GMT- Joe's call to fame with the Lord was to be ordered by an angel to copulate with more than one woman, in fact many. Tobin's call to fame with the Lord was to be visited by an angel to prevent him from copulating with any woman. Sort of a celestial coitus interruptus.

I am thankful the Lord saw fit to prevent Tobin from procreating.

[Guest]

I explained my position below.

No, you didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes I did. I stated what each of my positions were. And your failure to acknowledge them is the problem here.

Can you explain what is unreasonable about what I've said in the slightest

I've already explained. Science uncovers truth. It is entirely reasonable to use science to prove that claims that have been made a false. Many scientists do this. To say that scientists should not concern themselves with religious claims is as absurd as saying that scientists shouldn't concern themselves with bold but unsubstantiated medical claims. Extraordinary claims need to be addressed. Your position is quite simply absurd. You're just trying to give religious claims some sort of immunity from scrutiny.

This does not in the slightest address what I said. If you wouldn't mind quoting what I said and identifying exactly what is unreasonable about it, I would appreciate that.

And I'm not impressed by argumentum ad populum.

You ignored the second half of my sentence "I've not seen you post any authority on the matter"

Do you have any authority that states that science should concern itself with proving and disproving religious claims? I see no reason to cite an authority when you haven't made any case to refute.

You aren't seriously expecting me to just embrace your views of science, are you?

No, you don't seem intellectually honest enough to admit any of my points are reasonable, even though they clearly are. I actually think this conversation with you is rather interesting. You seem to lack any capacity for introspection.

I've repeatedly asked you some rather pointed questions. If you'd mind responding in any reasonable way to them, I'd appreciate that.

Would you mind reminding me what those are? I thought I'd responded to all of your questions.

See the next question --

Again, do you believe that science should be engaged in the business of telling people what religious beliefs are valid or not?

Scientists can do that. And there is no particular reason why they shouldn't if the evidence leads to that conclusion. Plenty of respected scientists do so.

Can you name one?

No. Those engaged in science should be determining facts using valid methods.

Who says this isn't happening? You can't just throw out baseless accusations.

Are religious beliefs a valid method?

They should not be engaging in religious beliefs in their research. I think such endeavors are perilous and inappropriate.

Who says this is happening?

Again, you seem to be saying that this is fine if they are doing this. See above where you state "Plenty of respected scientists do so."

I don't find misapplying studies and the ramifications of those studies to be a credible use. Do you?

How are the studies being misapplied? You still haven't explained this.

Yes I have. I've stated plenty of times the DNA studies in the Americas were not designed to determine whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. They were designed to determine the ancestry of the populations being tested.

Again, as I've said, that is not what the purpose was of these studies. Now, if someone believes that the groups tested had some contact with the supposed Book of Mormon people, that is clearly not the case. But that is all this demonstrates.

The purpose of the studies is to determine the DNA of Native Americans. That entitles people like Simon who are qualified to interpret the studies to make the type of statements he has made. You believe that they have to test every single inhabitant of North America. This is due to your lack of understanding of the methodology of the study and of the science itself, as well as your lack of understanding of what the Book of Mormon claims itself. If you can't get your head around this, I'm afraid this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

I think I understand it quite fine. You are making a blanket assertion that testing individual populations is equivalent to testing the entire population of the Americas. That is factually untrue.