Dr.W wrote:In the Book of Ether, the Book of Mormon states very clearly that the western hemisphere had been washed clean of human habitation during the great flood and prior to the first Book of Mormon transoceanic migrations.
The Book of Ether alone is absolutely fatal to the credibility of the Book of Mormon, with or without the damning, contrary DNA evidence. It is a slam dunk certainty that there could not ever have been a world wide flood that wiped out every single land species of fauna on earth, including humans, that were not on a single, large wooden boat, or that all mankind spoke a single language until the time the Tower of Babel was supposed to have occurred. The evidence against that myth is at least as strong as the DNA evidence.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Dr.W wrote:In the Book of Ether, the Book of Mormon states very clearly that the western hemisphere had been washed clean of human habitation during the great flood and prior to the first Book of Mormon transoceanic migrations.
The Book of Ether alone is absolutely fatal to the credibility of the Book of Mormon, with or without the damning, contrary DNA evidence. It is a slam dunk certainty that there could not ever have been a world wide flood that wiped out every single land species of fauna on earth, including humans, that were not on a single, large wooden boat, or that all mankind spoke a single language until the time the Tower of Babel was supposed to have occurred. The evidence against that myth is at least as strong as the DNA evidence.
That means Mormons cannot accept a local Noah flood as many scholars now do otherwise Jared and co would have run into "others" on the American hemisphere.
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"
As a control, we have also analyzed two other books dealing with ancient American Indians: View of the Hebrews and Manuscript Found. We compare both books with The Maya using the same statistical methodology and demonstrate that this methodology [Page 78]leads to rational conclusions about whether or not such books describe peoples and places similar to those described in The Maya.
Why use other fictions as a control? Why not use known historical fictions instead or additionally, as reference points? Works like the Great Gatsby, Gone With the Wind, or The Grapes of Wrath? Then we can compare how the Bayesian analysis pans out for knowing historical fictions versus the known historical events. That's my first thought after starting the Interpretor article. Controls are used to compare results of a hypothesis applied to known variables, to see the difference between those results and the results of applying the hypothesis to unknown variables, right?
All of these replies are truly interesting! Thanks for everyone chiming in. I think one thing that is interesting to me personally, now..... is the theme that Teryl Givens was given so much hype about being published by academic presses on his Mormon themes was a quite big deal to the apologists when it occurred. Academic presses giving a pro Mormon view the light of day?! Unheard of, and therefore all the more sweet! It was a sort of confirmation as it were. Now, with this kind of attempt at academic rigor with the Book of Mormon correlated to a real historical people and place, why publish it in an almost literally unknown publication that is not actually peer reviewed by academics outside the box? Why not get it published in the Harvard Theological Review or the Catholic Quarterly for instance? In my opinion, it is quite suspicious that The Interpreter is where it was published if the authors truly believed they have the goods-n-gold.
Was Coe consulted and shown the manuscript so he could agree that he was being represented accurately? I mean if we are going to have a valid academic confirmation, why not make sure the academics are involved? On such a singular important topic, you would think Mormon apologists would go way out of their way to make sure the world sees that the Book of Mormon is no joke, but actual history, and this kind of validating would be critical and crucial to that ends of showing the world that Jesus is the Christ, and Nephites are actual.
This just appears to me to be rather weak sauce. In the future I wonder if there is going to be any attempts at academic inclusivity. It is true Dr. Peterson has stepped out of the box in some ways in his debate with Michael Shermer, feeble as the debate ended up. But why not get well known Bayesians in on this kind fo study? Just musing out loud is all.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Simon Southerton wrote:I posted this response at Interpreter. It was deleted within 20 min.
Let me see if I have this right. The level of overall support for the Book of Mormon is calculated by multiplying Bayesian values for each piece of evidence. The authors have 131 positive pieces of evidence (in favour of the Book of Mormon) and 18 negative pieces of evidence. If you multiply 131 numbers together OF COURSE you are going to get a FAR more significant value for support than you will get for negative evidence by multiply 18 values together! This is just mathematizing parallelomania. The whole analysis is flawed.
131 multiplied numbers vs 18 multiplied numbers. Of course 131 wins
So they are really not interested in a conversation, but of simply declaring victory without analysis of people who do not hold their assumptions for what they interpret as the truth. No surprise really. Someone needs to get a Bayesian scholar involved in this exactly as robert Ritner did with the Book of Abraham. If we pester the Bayesians enough as Ritner was pestered, perhaps they will step up to the plate and put an end to this nonsense.... I'm just sayin.......
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
1. the Book of Mormon people were the Mayans, with a confidence of a billion google billion to one 2. every human being is a cat, if we narrow the criteria appropriately, with similar absolute certainty. Criteria for examination: evaluate only things which humans and cats share in common.
This paper applies the same logic by ignoring all historical references not related to Mayan culture. Since the cultural underpinning of the Book of Mormon was based on over 200 years of observations about Indian cultures, by definition they should substantially agree. Since the paper also ignores every Book of Mormon cultural reference which is not explicitly commented on by a Mayan expert, all of the most significant differences can be swept aside.
Last edited by Guest on Sun May 05, 2019 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1. every human being is a cat, if we narrow the criteria appropriately, with a certainty of a billion google billion to one. 2. the Book of Mormon people were the Mayans, with a similar degree of absolute certainty.
Criteria for examination: look only at things that humans and cats share in common.
This paper applies the same logic by ignoring all historical references not related to Mayan culture. Since the cultural underpinning of the Book of Mormon was based on over 200 years of observations about Indian cultures, by definition they should substantially agree. Since the paper also ignores every Book of Mormon cultural reference which is not explicitly commented on by a Mayan expert, all of the most significant differences can be swept aside.
Very interesting points here. Thanks for mentioning these. I kind of get the gist now of why the paper was so enthusiastic. I honestly know of no actual Mormon scholar who agrees that the Nephites were Mayans, so doesn't it appear rather odd that they really build up the parallels between the two? Why not the Olmecs, or others in the ancient Americas? It's quite interesting.......
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
This is just putting bad math to parallelmania. Some of their correlation are just wrong. They correlate the clouds of darkness from 3 Nephi to a volcano eruption in Central America. Problem is - the Book of Mormon does not mention a volcano. Cherry picks and ignors the majority of the negative correlations: DNA, anachronisms, horses, metallurgy etc. Again it is a overdone fluff piece useful for convincing believers, but that falls apart on its face when subjected to real examination.
Last edited by Guest on Sun May 05, 2019 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Philo Sofee wrote: So they are really not interested in a conversation, but of simply declaring victory without analysis of people who do not hold their assumptions for what they interpret as the truth. No surprise really. Someone needs to get a Bayesian scholar involved in this exactly as robert Ritner did with the Book of Abraham. If we pester the Bayesians enough as Ritner was pestered, perhaps they will step up to the plate and put an end to this nonsense.... I'm just sayin'.......
I sent one a message this morning. But I'm a nobody, so the odds of the message even being seen are low, I'm afraid.