Keith A. Crandall's Careless DNA Claims

[_SteelHead]

Looks like John Dehlin has picked this up.
https://m.Facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... =122802196

https://m.Facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 8521049904


Now this Derek guy in the comments is going to have to do the same thing as Bot and explain to me how 20k year old or so samples tracing the migration of DNA aacross the land bridge can in any way support the Book of Mormon.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Arrakis has it right. Any human DNA originating in the Lavant came to the pre-Columbian New World more than 13,000 years ago by way of Beringia, not 4,000 - 5,000 years or so ago on an imaginary Nephite sailing ship or (even sillier) on a wooden Jaredite semi-submersible.
_____________

ETA: It is not as if the critics, including Simon and a few others, have not gone over this ground several times on this board in the last few years. This has been done in detail and with references to the peer reviewed literature.

It is "Levant." I make the post not to argue a point but to read southerton's response for myself, and not to read a bunch of posts from lesser lights who've never heard of the word "Levant." Is that too much to ask? I might agree with Southerton if he'd just respond.

[_EAllusion]

The DNA studies were not designed to prove or disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon. The studies were trying to determine the ancestry of select groups of native American populations.

Likewise, because attempts at determine the age of the earth weren't specifically motivated to disprove the religious beliefs of young earthers, saying that the scientific evidence of an old earth militates against religions that claim the earth is a few thousand years old is misuse of science?

[_Arrakis]

It is "Levant." I make the post not to argue a point but to read southerton's response for myself, and not to read a bunch of posts from lesser lights who've never heard of the word "Levant." Is that too much to ask? I might agree with Southerton if he'd just respond.

Translation....you can't back up your mouth. If you had an actual point you would simply post the paragraph to support your claim; thanks for the confirmation.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Translation....you can't back up your mouth. If you had an actual point you would simply post the paragraph to support your claim; thanks for the confirmation.

All I'd like him to do is comment upon the Wiki entry. I have no point to make other than to ask if he thinks the analysis is accurate.

[Guest]

Arrakis has it right. Any human DNA originating in the Lavant came to the pre-Columbian New World more than 13,000 years ago by way of Beringia, not 4,000 - 5,000 years or so ago on an imaginary Nephite sailing ship or (even sillier) on a wooden Jaredite semi-submersible.
_____________

ETA: It is not as if the critics, including Simon and a few others, have not gone over this ground several times on this board in the last few years. This has been done in detail and with references to the peer reviewed literature.

It is "Levant." I make the post not to argue a point but to read southerton's response for myself, and not to read a bunch of posts from lesser lights who've never heard of the word "Levant." Is that too much to ask? I might agree with Southerton if he'd just respond.

Sorry that you are so offended by a typo. You failed to capitalize the "S" in Southerton. Was this a typo or intentional disrespect?

What is it about the statement that this ground has been covered by Simon, myself, and others several times on this board, with references to the peer reviewed literature, while you have been a member, that you do not understand?

The threads linked below discussing the issue have been active within the last few months. The second one addresses the Crandall claims directly.

Here.
And Here

You just look silly, YB. Give it up.

[_DrW]

Translation....you can't back up your mouth. If you had an actual point you would simply post the paragraph to support your claim; thanks for the confirmation.

All I'd like him to do is comment upon the Wiki entry. I have no point to make other than to ask if he thinks the analysis is accurate.

Again, it does not matter whether the analysis in the Wiki article is accurate or not. The fact is that it the subject matter covered in the Wiki article is chronologically irrelevant, by at least 5000 years, to the issue of the the alleged Nephite transoceanic migration to the New World.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

How is it bad science? How is he misusing science?

The DNA studies were not designed to prove or disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon. The studies were trying to determine the ancestry of select groups of native American populations. It is a misuse of these studies to use them to attack the religious convictions of people that believe that a small group of people, were lead by God no less, to this continent a few thousand years ago. Whether or not a group of people travelled here a few thousand years ago has nothing to do with these studies. They may have simply had no interaction with the people being sampled at all. That is why it is bad science and shouldn't be done.

Then your definition of bad science makes no sense and furthermore misses the point of the thread. Simon was actually pointing out demonstrable errors, not criticizing the use of science to attempt to prove religious claims.

If you think the study has nothing to do with whether the Lamanites, Nephites or Jaredites really existed then I'm afraid you haven't read the Scriptures enough. The Book of Mormon states in multiple places that they spread over the face of the land. Nephi was basically promised that they would still be around in considerable number when the Europeans came. This limited geography model really doesn't work if you actually read the book. That is why the church tought for over a hundred years that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. It was science that forced apologists into the limited geography model so how can you claim that these studies don't go to the issue?

You've failed to show that Simon has engaged in bad science.

[_Tobin]

Then your definition of bad science makes no sense and furthermore misses the point of the thread. Simon was actually pointing out demonstrable errors, not criticizing the use of science to attempt to prove religious claims.

If you think the study has nothing to do with whether the Lamanites, Nephites or Jaredites really existed then I'm afraid you haven't read the Scriptures enough. The Book of Mormon states in multiple places that they spread over the face of the land. Nephi was basically promised that they would still be around in considerable number when the Europeans came. This limited geography model really doesn't work if you actually read the book. That is why the church tought for over a hundred years that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. It was science that forced apologists into the limited geography model so how can you claim that these studies don't go to the issue?

You've failed to show that Simon has engaged in bad science.

That is really a silly set of assertions, so let me ask you a question (and let's see if you can answer it). Do you believe the primary job of science is to prove or disprove religious claims? If so, then I can see why you have such a bizarre approach to the topic. If not, then I really don't see why you are wasting my time?!?

[_Tobin]

The DNA studies were not designed to prove or disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon. The studies were trying to determine the ancestry of select groups of native American populations.

Likewise, because attempts at determine the age of the earth weren't specifically motivated to disprove the religious beliefs of young earthers, saying that the scientific evidence of an old earth militates against religions that claim the earth is a few thousand years old is misuse of science?

Scientists concern themselves with determining how old the Earth really is. They are not concerned with what certain religious people believe about how old the Earth is.