Who Are Indians Really?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

The probability of a lehite migration to the Americas during the time frame of the Book of Mormon is miniscule.



The probability is relevant only to someone who approaches the Book of Mormon from an a priori naturalistic, secularist bias, but not necessarily for one who holds to a different set of primary philsophical assumptions. It either happened or it didn't, regardless of probability. It was either an empirical fact or it wasn't, and as Charity has pointed out, we cannot determine, one way or the other, including with present DNA analysis, which is the case.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: Who Are Indians Really?

Post by _solomarineris »

charity wrote:Argue with me all you want. But do you want to take on Jonathan Marks, ph. d., Department of Anthropology
I predict this thread will get no traffic. Why? Because it establishes in scientific tersm why the non-presence of "Hebrew" DNA does not prove that Lehi is a myth.


Well Charity, You asked for it;

WHO ARE THE INDIANS, REALLY?

Don't you know?

Let me tell you as a CONVERT;
I was converted to this faith under the premise of Lamanites being of ALL DESCENDANTS OF LEHI and JEREDITES.

Tell me I am lying.
If not then there is no middle ground.


After all, who needs a DNA fact, when I have the first hand knowledge.
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: Who Are Indians Really?

Post by _solomarineris »

charity wrote:Argue with me all you want. But do you want to take on Jonathan Marks, ph. d., Department of Anthropology
I predict this thread will get no traffic. Why? Because it establishes in scientific tersm why the non-presence of "Hebrew" DNA does not prove that Lehi is a myth.


Well Charity, You asked for it;

WHO ARE THE INDIANS, REALLY?

Don't you know?

Let me tell you as a CONVERT;
I was converted to this faith under the premise of Lamanites being of ALL DESCENDANTS OF LEHI and JEREDITES.

Tell me I am lying.
If not then there is no middle ground.


After all, who needs a DNA fact, when I have the first hand knowledge.
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

Coggins7 wrote:
The probability of a lehite migration to the Americas during the time frame of the Book of Mormon is miniscule.



The probability is relevant only to someone who approaches the Book of Mormon from an a priori naturalistic, secularist bias, but not necessarily for one who holds to a different set of primary philsophical assumptions. It either happened or it didn't, regardless of probability. It was either an empirical fact or it wasn't, and as Charity has pointed out, we cannot determine, one way or the other, including with present DNA analysis, which is the case.


It seems as if you're smuggling in the notion of "empirical fact" without really giving a rip as to the underlying science that might tend to confirm or disconfirm said empirical fact.

Your position seems to be that it, in fact, did happen. Period. Genetic probabilities are not at all germane to your sure knowledge. And since we cannot conclusively determine that it didn't happen, and since you already believe that it did happen, you're not interested in objective evidence that might tend to erode your subjective confidence.

You're apparently punting to a spiritual witness here without regard to objective evidence.

And the DNA evidence is rather definitionally, and in a very fundamental sense, not a priori. Rather your apparent disregard for the objective evidence is a priori, unless you're counting a personal, spiritual witness of Book of Mormon as prior experiential evidence that invalidates publicly-accessible objective evidence, which I suspect you are.

So, who's really arguing in an a priori manner here? Those who summarily discount current genetic evidence as being less than germane to the "empirical fact" of a Lehite migration? Or, those who are open to the verdict of genetic evidence?

If an Israelite haplotype were discovered among indigenous Mesoamericans, would you so cavalierly dismiss the discussion of probability? Or, would you say, "Aha! This is good evidence for my belief?"

CKS
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

After all, who needs a DNA fact, when I have the first hand knowledge.



Now you've got it old boy! Keep up the good work!
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

It seems as if you're smuggling in the notion of "empirical fact" without really giving a rip as to the underlying science that might tend to confirm or disconfirm said empirical fact.


Whether the underlying science may or may not confirm or disconfirm that alleged empirical fact is not in play here. The relevant fact of the matter is that the evidence necessary to confirm or disconfirm is beyond the scope of present genetic analysis.


Your position seems to be that it, in fact, did happen. Period.



I am convinced that it did, yes.


Genetic probabilities are not at all germane to your sure knowledge.


Correct. They are not germain, within my paradigm. They are also not philosophically germain, as the probability of that which is in question does not answer the question as to what actually did or did not occur.


And since we cannot conclusively determine that it didn't happen, and since you already believe that it did happen, you're not interested in objective evidence that might tend to erode your subjective confidence.


No. There is no definitive empirical evidence that would predispose such erosion.


You're apparently punting to a spiritual witness here without regard to objective evidence.


What objective evidence? The generic science cannot tell us anything about Lehi, period. The dog has died. The disproof of the Book of Mormon is, again, beyond the critics reach.



And the DNA evidence is rather definitionally, and in a very fundamental sense, not a priori.


Correct, DNA evidence is not a priori. However, one's interpretation of the evidence may very certainly carry a priori assumptions that are a matter of world view and philosophical assumption.


Rather your apparent disregard for the objective evidence is a priori, unless you're counting a personal, spiritual witness of Book of Mormon as prior experiential evidence that invalidates publicly-accessible objective evidence, which I suspect you are.


The witness is evidence-nay-proof. Oh, but of course, it isn't publically accessible; its not accessible to independent observers.

In any case, the witness isn't invalidating anything as there is nothing to invalidate. The science is out on Lehi.


So, who's really arguing in an a priori manner here?


Revelation isn't a priori knowledge. It is direct and experienced knowledge. It is not independent of experience but knowledge experienced.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

Coggins7 wrote:What objective evidence? The generic [genetic?] science cannot tell us anything about Lehi, period. The dog has died. The disproof of the Book of Mormon is, again, beyond the critics reach.


This seems to be Charity's mainstay as well: "You can't prove that it didn't happen." This strikes me as cold comfort, indeed.

I also can't prove that you're not a shape-shifting alien currently instantiated as a hard-to-notice smear of some greasy substance back of my refrigerator; and, you are. The dog has died. The disproof of my hypothetical is beyond your reach.

And I hope you won't insult me by dragging any empirical facts into the matter (such as non-greasy-smear-resembling family photographs that predate my claim). They aren't, at least in any relevant sense, germain to my belief in your transmogrified greasy-smearedness. You're either a hard-to-notice smear of some greasy substance back of my refrigerator or you're not. But you are, just so you know.

Also, I killed your dog.

CKS
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

This seems to be Charity's mainstay as well: "You can't prove that it didn't happen." This strikes me as cold comfort, indeed.


That's not the argument. The fact that modern science cannot prove or disprove LDS claims about a component of Indian heredity does not make the Church's claims de facto substantiated. What it simply shows is that the evidence itself, whatever it is, is beyond the reach of empirical examination of this kind.

I also can't prove that you're not a shape-shifting alien currently instantiated as a hard-to-notice smear of some greasy substance back of my refrigerator; and, you are. The dog has died. The disproof of my hypothetical is beyond your reach.


But that claim is improbable in the extreme, while the idea that semitic people could have made transoceanic voyages of the sort the Book of Mormon claims is, while not pedestrian, hardly without historical precedent and certainly plausible. Many cultures of the era and before had the technology to do so.

Its also perfectly plausible that Celts, Chinese, and black Africans made voyages to the New World and to some extent colonized it. Is there evidence? Maybe, maybe not, but they are conservative claims; these peoples could have, with some effort (but hardly beyond their capacity), done such things. Shape shifting aliens, on the other hand, are not only implausible on their face but, unlike such colonizations, quite outside human experience.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

Coggins7 wrote:
This seems to be Charity's mainstay as well: "You can't prove that it didn't happen." This strikes me as cold comfort, indeed.


That's not the argument. The fact that modern science cannot prove or disprove LDS claims about a component of Indian heredity does not make the Church's claims de facto substantiated. What it simply shows is that the evidence itself, whatever it is, is beyond the reach of empirical examination of this kind.

I also can't prove that you're not a shape-shifting alien currently instantiated as a hard-to-notice smear of some greasy substance back of my refrigerator; and, you are. The dog has died. The disproof of my hypothetical is beyond your reach.


But that claim is improbable in the extreme, while the idea that semitic people could have made transoceanic voyages of the sort the Book of Mormon claims is, while not pedestrian, hardly without historical precedent and certainly plausible. Many cultures of the era and before had the technology to do so.

Its also perfectly plausible that Celts, Chinese, and black Africans made voyages to the New World and to some extent colonized it. Is there evidence? Maybe, maybe not, but they are conservative claims; these peoples could have, with some effort (but hardly beyond their capacity), done such things. Shape shifting aliens, on the other hand, are not only implausible on their face but, unlike such colonizations, quite outside human experience.


Time out for friendly banter: You should get Fingerprints of the Gods. Seriously. It's cheap (if used) on Amazon and very interesting. (Note: it's not a von Daniken book.)

I don't question the possibility of semitic people's making transoceanic voyages. I question it's probability in the time frame of and as purported by Book of Mormon. But, as you've stated, you're not interested in probabilities. It would seem that mere possibility (a notoriously low logical bar), in the absence of incontrovertible, evidential, disproof of said possibility, is enough for you to retain sure confidence in your assumed thesis.

Downside of LDS-themed message boards for traditional Christians: they really make one question one's preconceived religious knowledge. I call it the Chris Smith effect. I could have much more easily done without them.

CKS
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

I read Fingerprints of the Gods around 1995 or 96.

I don't think there are any major barriers, technological or cultural, to a semitic people making that kind of voyage. This would, indeed, be about probabilities, and one would have to look at the inductive strength of the arguments made from the evidence available to see whether or not such probabilities (or improbabilities) were as likely as a critic might claim.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
Post Reply