Who Are Indians Really?

[_Abinadi's Fire]

I am very sensitive to overblown claims.

Is this the proper time to use the term irony?

[_Who Knows]

While he insists on using the word "principal" in a way that no dictionary will support...

Lol. A month later, and you're still hanging on to this crap? Even after it's been clearly demonstrated that you're wrong?

How about using the word in the manner in which the author intended it to be used (and which the dictionary clearly supports)?

Can't teach an old dog new tricks, i guess.

[_silentkid]

Charity: Yes, science deals with probabilities, not possibilities. Genetics is a science based on probabilities. The probability of a lehite migration to the Americas during the time frame of the Book of Mormon is miniscule. Does the possibility exist? Yes. The genetic evidence is not in favor of this possibility. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the apologists, those making the claim against the present evidence. LGT is one way of attempting to get around the DNA issue. I don't find it compelling. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No. I won't be buying any lottery tickets this week.

PS: "Phone's ringing, Dude."

[_truth dancer]

Charity... PLEASE!

And dancer, just for your information, you should note there is NO scientific evidence that the Book of Mormon isn't what it says it is. There is also no scientific "proof" that it is what it says it is either, but there are evidences. You shouldn't buy into the anti-Mormon lie that the Book of Mormon has been proven false.

Please quote me where I have EVER STATED ANYTHING suggesting there is scientific proof that the Book of Mormon is false?

I have never suggested such a thing. What are you talking about?

Why do you think for one second I have bought into an anti-Mormon lie that the Book of Mormon has been proven false?

Where in the world do you come up with pretend things other people do not say about which you think you are arguing?

Really Charity this is getting down right ridiculous here!

I do not think for one minute the Book of Mormon is true... but not because there is scientific proof, or because I'm buying into a lie.

Did you read my post suggesting you may want to step back and clarify what others are suggesting before arguing with yourself??

~dancer~

[_beastie]

Did you read my post suggesting you may want to step back and clarify what others are suggesting before arguing with yourself??

It's maddening, isn't it? I've never seen anything quite like it.

[_cksalmon]

And I am very sensitive to overblown claims. Murphy claimed that the DNA evidence proved the Book of Mormon to be false. What a crackpot. Southern, who also holds similar views, still says that DNA could not disprove the existence of a group such as the Lehites.

I could certainly be incorrect, but I believe this might be an overblown claim to which I'm very sensitive. I'm developing some sort of rash, I think.

CFR that Murphy has stated or written that "the DNA evidence proved the Book of Mormon to be false." He may, indeed, have done so at some point. I'm definitely interested in knowing whether or not he has, as I do think he overstates his case somewhat in the Sunstone presentation I referenced, but I certainly don't recall him stating that "the DNA evidence proved the Book of Mormon to be false." I do recall his saying that there is no compelling evidence of a Lehite migration.

Where might I find this claim by Murphy, Charity?

In his review, DCP writes: "In his 2002 essay 'Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics,' Thomas Murphy argues that, since evidence from current scientific studies of molecular DNA has been interpreted as showing an almost exclusively Asiatic genetic inheritance for Native Americans, the Book of Mormon is almost certainly not true, and that, accordingly, its claims to historicity should be abandoned."

Note here that DCP's claim is significantly less bold than yours. Note also that DCP doesn't provide a direct quotation for his statement; this is his summary of the article. I have no doubt that DCP has aptly summarized Murphy's view. But I find no evidence in the article or in DCP's review that Murphy has claimed "the DNA evidence proved the Book of Mormon to be false."

CKS

PS. Have you read Murphy's chapter in American Apocrypha? Have you read anything by Murphy other than quotations in a FARMS or FAIR review?

[_Coggins7]

Thanks, road to hana. You did not disappoint me. Now that the scientific DNA argument against the Book of Mormon is shot down by non-LDS scholars with impressive credentials, it didn't matter after all?

The critics keep meeting and exceeding all my expectations.

[_Coggins7]

Like anyone here really doubts the fact that charity has absolutely no clue what the critical argument is.

Keep up the pose...

She proved ignorant on the critical argument regarding the Book of Abraham,

Is Scratch giving classes in this approach to debate?

so she immediately fled the scene to tackle another straw man on DNA. This is a neverending circle with her where she starts something she can't finish while wandering over into more topics she knows nothing about. Of course, offering the arrogant "deal with that!" taunt as she leaves the scene.

Bluster, bravado, foam and froth. The critical point is is that what we've been saying all along is correct: the DNA criticism of the Book of Mormon is a phantasm. There is no possibility of discerning the possible ancestral lines of any particular Amerindian, let alone entire tribes. If Lehite DNA is there, the critics have won the augment by default because it will never be found, at least not with present technology.

Critics chase the DNA gravy train because it had, in the beginning, the imprimatur of empirical science. We've known all along (and so have the critics), that Proving or disproving Amerindian ancestry (especially considering the fact that most of the Indian DNA around at the time of Columbus was wiped out by Smallpox), is a fools errand. The last Nephite, Moroni, lived some 1,600 years ago. We don't know what Nephite DNA looked like or with what it was intermixed over time. As with the Book of Abraham, you have hypothesis, conjecture, and faith in the cogency of your inferential leaps. Others, just as intelligent, just as educated, and just as thoughtful, have looked at the same evidence, and come to different conclusions.

Here is a pointer for you.

No, here is a pointer for you Mr. Wizard: your head is so far up your butt if you lit a cigarette you'd be able to send smoke signals with your navel. You have a long, long way to go son, a long way to go.

[_Coggins7]

Can DNA demosntrate conclusively that there are or are not individuals with the unknown genetic profile of the described group in the ancestral tree of modern American Indians?

Obviously not, as the unknown marker would have to be--uh--known.

But logical contradictions and empirical walls beyond which the data cannot take us have not stopped critics of the Church before.

[_Coggins7]

Charity, what you have made abundantly clear, on this and other threads, is that nothing disproves the Book of Mormon to the person who is the ardent, faithful believer.

This two edged sword cuts deep hana.