Excellent takedown of Mopologist DNA misinformation

[huckelberry]

People speak of something breaking that shelf full of problems and uncertainty. I know blacks and the priesthood was on that shelf with other things for me. With youthful uncertainty that shelf stood for a while. It was reading archeology and development of corn which broke my shelf.

I could not imagine how a history of transatlantic settlers could ignore all the people living here. For me, the Book of Mormon as fiction was clear. These DNA studies confirm and underline the problem but they are not necessary.

I do not think I am blind to questioning a high school decision. I am curious. I have read responses noting the population growth in the Book of Mormon is too rapid to expect without absorption of preexisting populations. That could be people absorbed or storytelling convenience.

I think immigrants to a land populated by native civilizations not some refugees would face serious ongoing problems of independence and safe relations. There would be relationhips or problems with indigenous religion, language, etc. But the Book of Mormon is written with no mention of these large problems. How could that be?

I have heard suggestions that the abridgment by Mormon and Moroni was so complete as to constitute a rewrite, eliminating all the real history of the immigrants' problems and conflicts and in its place creating a narrative of uncontested control by the immigrants' group.

I suppose for those able to swallow that theory the DNA problem arises. Even if you can imagine that rewrite, the immigrant community was large. I do not see it genetically lost.

[I Have Questions]

People speak of something breaking that shelf full of problems and uncertainty. I know blacks and the priesthood was on that shelf with other things for me. With youthful uncertainty that shelf stood for a while. It was reading archeology and development of corn which broke my shelf.

I could not imagine how a history of transatlantic settlers could ignore all the people living here. For me, the Book of Mormon as fiction was clear. These DNA studies confirm and underline the problem but they are not necessary.

I do not think I am blind to questioning a high school decision. I am curious. I have read responses noting the population growth in the Book of Mormon is too rapid to expect without absorption of preexisting populations. That could be people absorbed or storytelling convenience.

I think immigrants to a land populated by native civilizations not some refugees would face serious ongoing problems of independence and safe relations. There would be relationhips or problems with indigenous religion, language, etc. But the Book of Mormon is written with no mention of these large problems. How could that be?

I have heard suggestions that the abridgment by Mormon and Moroni was so complete as to constitute a rewrite, eliminating all the real history of the immigrants' problems and conflicts and in its place creating a narrative of uncontested control by the immigrants' group.

I suppose for those able to swallow that theory the DNA problem arises. Even if you can imagine that rewrite, the immigrant community was large. I do not see it genetically lost.

That’s an interesting take on things. I’d like an Apostle to answer, or even a denialist (my name for an apologist), for which native Americans, specifically, are the Laminates their ancestors? They won’t answer. They can’t answer. Because very single indigenous population of native Americans that’s ever been genetically tested has ancestors that come from somewhere other than where it needs to come from for the Book of Mormon to be non fiction. I confidently predict that no trace of any such migratory, settling population will ever be found. Anywhere. Because it didn’t exist. You might as well believe in mermaids as Lamanites. There’s an equal amount of evidence for them.

[malkie]

No one has to do it for me. And yes, the arguments do exist. You can also do your own research for yourself.

Don't do it for me. I did it for myself and came away knowing that I hadn't gotten the full scoop from you.

Let me ask you this. Wouldn't you encourage others to do their own research? My point earlier is that now where A.I. use is prohibited in any way shape or form we are severely limited on this board. You can say pretty much whatever you want to and get away with it.

As I said, I am...at this point...not going to feel obligated to answer all of your inquiries or offer 'proofs' for everything that I disagree with. I can, however, do it for myself and come back and suggest that others do a simple search to determine whether or not you're telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I'm not going to spend all the time necessary to rebut every falsehood you put out there. I WAS able to do a MUCH better job of doing so with the help of A.I.

You could see that and so you fought tooth and nail to get rid of that option. And then you bellyache that I won't take the time to go in depth with you on any one topic. And the crazy thing is, you don't feel obligated to answer ANY of my questions. Why should I keep catering to yours?

What I can do is give reason to others to follow up on your posts and the jaundiced views you present. I've taken SO MUCH time with you. And you were going to set me to ignore and not engage me anymore.

What happened there? I wish you would follow through on your commitment. Essentially you are a waste of my time. But I feel as though I can't simply let you get away with some of your crap. So I found a shortcut that actually works. A.I. provided that shortcut. And then it was mixed.

Oh well.

Regards,
MG

All that effort to post all that, yet cannot bring yourself to find and post a quote from one of those geneticists you said have some rebuttals for Southerton’s points. Not. One. Quote. You’re too damn lazy to contribute.

Three words: burden of proof.

[Dr. Shades]

Not that long ago I repeatedly said that on a board such as this one, for various reasons already mentioned, MORE information is almost always better than less.

Not if the "more information" is inaccurate. The only time more information is almost always better than less is if AND ONLY IF the more information is accurate.

Let me ask you this. Wouldn't you encourage others to do their own research? My point earlier is that now where A.I. use is prohibited in any way shape or form we are severely limited on this board. You can say pretty much whatever you want to and get away with it.

You're just as free to refute someone's inaccurate assertions as you were before the invention of A.I. I don't see why you've forgotten all the years you were alive prior to its invention.

I'm not going to spend all the time necessary to rebut every falsehood you put out there. I WAS able to do a MUCH better job of doing so with the help of A.I.

Correction: YOU didn't refute anything. You copied-and-pasted computer-generated text that told you what you wanted to hear. It added no actual facts that could be considered refutations.

But I feel as though I can't simply let you get away with some of your crap. So I found a shortcut that actually works. A.I. provided that shortcut. And then it was mixed.

Do you mean "nixed?"

Either way, no, your shortcut didn't "work." It generated text that pleased you but didn't enlighten anyone.

[MG 2.0]

Not that long ago I repeatedly said that on a board such as this one, for various reasons already mentioned, MORE information is almost always better than less.

Not if the "more information" is inaccurate. The only time more information is almost always better than less is if AND ONLY IF the more information is accurate.

Let me ask you this. Wouldn't you encourage others to do their own research? My point earlier is that now where A.I. use is prohibited in any way shape or form we are severely limited on this board. You can say pretty much whatever you want to and get away with it.

You're just as free to refute someone's inaccurate assertions as you were before the invention of A.I. I don't see why you've forgotten all the years you were alive prior to its invention.

I'm not going to spend all the time necessary to rebut every falsehood you put out there. I WAS able to do a MUCH better job of doing so with the help of A.I.

Correction: YOU didn't refute anything. You copied-and-pasted computer-generated text that told you what you wanted to hear. It added no actual facts that could be considered refutations.

But I feel as though I can't simply let you get away with some of your crap. So I found a shortcut that actually works. A.I. provided that shortcut. And then it was mixed.

Do you mean "nixed?"

Either way, no, your shortcut didn't "work." It generated text that pleased you but didn't enlighten anyone.

You, of course, being the board administrator and final arbitrator in this matter will have your way and your opinion will count more than mine. I disagree with much of what you have said but, alas, it is what it is. Anything beyond this is pretty much a rehash which I find unproductive and also an example of where time can be used in some other way that brings more joy.

Not that this discussion doesn't result in a small dose of joy.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Not if the "more information" is inaccurate. The only time more information is almost always better than less is if AND ONLY IF the more information is accurate.


You're just as free to refute someone's inaccurate assertions as you were before the invention of A.I. I don't see why you've forgotten all the years you were alive prior to its invention.


Correction: YOU didn't refute anything. You copied-and-pasted computer-generated text that told you what you wanted to hear. It added no actual facts that could be considered refutations.


Do you mean "nixed?"

Either way, no, your shortcut didn't "work." It generated text that pleased you but didn't enlighten anyone.

You, of course, being the board administrator and final arbitrator in this matter will have your way and your opinion will count more than mine. I disagree with much of what you have said…

Really? What specifically has Shades said in that post that you disagree with and why do you disagree with it?

[I Have Questions]

Not if the "more information" is inaccurate. The only time more information is almost always better than less is if AND ONLY IF the more information is accurate.


You're just as free to refute someone's inaccurate assertions as you were before the invention of A.I. I don't see why you've forgotten all the years you were alive prior to its invention.


Correction: YOU didn't refute anything. You copied-and-pasted computer-generated text that told you what you wanted to hear. It added no actual facts that could be considered refutations.


Do you mean "nixed?"

Either way, no, your shortcut didn't "work." It generated text that pleased you but didn't enlighten anyone.

You, of course, being the board administrator and final arbitrator in this matter will have your way and your opinion will count more than mine. I disagree with much of what you have said but, alas, it is what it is. Anything beyond this is pretty much a rehash which I find unproductive and also an example of where time can be used in some other way that brings more joy.

Not that this discussion doesn't result in a small dose of joy.

Regards,
MG

Really? What specifically has Shades said in that post that you disagree with and why do you disagree with it?

[MG 2.0]

You, of course, being the board administrator and final arbitrator in this matter will have your way and your opinion will count more than mine. I disagree with much of what you have said but, alas, it is what it is. Anything beyond this is pretty much a rehash which I find unproductive and also an example of where time can be used in some other way that brings more joy.

Not that this discussion doesn't result in a small dose of joy.

Regards,
MG

Really? What specifically has Shades said in that post that you disagree with and why do you disagree with it?

I've already gone the rounds on this. I will not continue to do so for your benefit. The man who asks questions but hardly ever answers them.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

Really? What specifically has Shades said in that post that you disagree with and why do you disagree with it?

I've already gone the rounds on this. I will not continue to do so for your benefit. The man who asks questions but hardly ever answers them.

Regards,
MG

Still just casting aspersions rather than being able to point to specifics. That's very MG 2.0 of you.

[MG 2.0]

I've already gone the rounds on this. I will not continue to do so for your benefit. The man who asks questions but hardly ever answers them.

Regards,
MG

Still just casting aspersions rather than being able to point to specifics. That's very MG 2.0 of you.

Many of my posts go into some detail on this or that. Some posts, for example this one to IHQ, I don't see any reason to take the time to rehash what has already been said/covered many many times. It's honestly not worth my time. Especially in regards to someone like him. He won't answer any (or very few) questions, he only asks and asks and asks. I see that as unworthy of in depth conversation. And uninteresting.

His moniker is appropriate.

Regards,
MG