Which LDS Truth Claims are Falsifiable?

[Free(?)Thinker]

The first recorded use of the word "freighter" was 1839...after the publication of the Book of Mormon: See Link

That is an interesting find. I've also looked at the link you provided for types of barges, and they are varied.

What is your take on the physical constraints which impose themselves on the Jaredites' barges, given the conditions they endured?

What is your take on the sanitation, air, and potable water issues inherent in such a long voyage?

[DrW]

As a former sailor, some one familiar with nautical usage, and a fan of the Napoleonic era navies, I feel compelled to point out that the term 'barge' has never been exclusive to either un powered or frieght only craft. Large sail and/or oar powered craft were frequently referred to as barges- especially if they were made with flat bottoms and shallow drafts. The term Admiral's barge- denoting a small craft reserved for the use of flag officers or other dignitaries- is a hold over from this tradition. The Chinese navy from the 5th century on, were building large riverine combatants powered primarily by oars and occasionally by sails that are adequately described as barges. Earlier still, Cleopatra had an opulent oar and sail powered craft- called a barge- built for excursions on the Nile. Simply put, DrW's very narrow and dogmatic reading of the text doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of anyone with even a passing familiarity with nautical terminology and isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Please read the description of the barges in question. There were peaked on both ends, watertight like unto a dish, had holes in the top and bottom for air, had no "windows" and were sealed so tightly that the passengers needed a hole for air and a source of light inside.

There is no mention of any kind of power whatsoever. As I suggested earlier, if you insist on speculation as to unmentioned sources of power, why not just go nuclear? Then you need not worry about masts, or sails, or rigging, or oars or oar ports, or any of the other inconsistency problems that you encounter with sail or oar power.

The first (and by far the most common) formal definition of a barge is an unpowered vessel. So as I stated, by definition, a barge is a vessel with no means of propulsion, and this is exactly what Joseph Smith described.

As to my nautical experience and knowledge of seamanship; if you read the initial post, you will see that I am an experienced ocean sailor (skippered crossings on a 50 foot sailboat). I have owned several boats, including an oceangoing sailboat, and hold both ASA and US Sailing certifications on both monohull and multi-hull vessels. As to navigation skills, I am also a commercial pilot with instrument and multi-engine ratings (FAA #2116382, if you would care to check).

[smac97]

This thread is about falsifiability and claimed historical miracles are not falsifiable.

An excellent summation.

So I guess the next question is this: Are the LDS truth claims that do not require consideration of "historical miracles?"

For example, Joseph's translation of the BoA facsimiles could, at first blush, be construed as being falsifiable. But then we are not dealing with a situation where Joseph claimed to have translated by miraculous means. That being the case, will the results of divinely-wrought translation/interpretation efforts necessarily mesh with translation/interpretation efforts wrought by mundane means (the wisdom and learning of men)?

I appreciate your participation in this thread, BTW.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sethpayne]

An excellent summation.

For example, Joseph's translation of the BoA facsimiles could, at first blush, be construed as being falsifiable. But then we are not dealing with a situation where Joseph claimed to have translated by miraculous means. That being the case, will the results of divinely-wrought translation/interpretation efforts necessarily mesh with translation/interpretation efforts wrought by mundane means (the wisdom and learning of men)?

Once we invoke divine revelation we have moved away from the realm of falsifiable. If we say that the facsimiles were conduits through which Joseph received revelation then the claim is not falsifiable.

Claims of translation are falsifiable. Claims of revelation are not.

However if, by revelation, a specific claims is made about history, science, or even the accuracy of a translation, then we once again have a falsifiable claim to examine.

[smac97]

Please read the description of the barges in question. There were peaked on both ends, watertight like unto a dish, had holes in the top and bottom for air, had no "windows" and were sealed so tightly that the passengers needed a hole for air and a source of light inside.

There is no mention of any kind of power whatsoever. As I suggested earlier, if you insist on speculation as to unmentioned sources of power, why not just go nuclear? Then you need not worry about masts, or sails, or rigging, or oars or oar ports, or any of the other inconsistency problems that you encounter with sail or oar power.

The first (and by far the most common) formal definition of a barge is an unpowered vessel. So as I stated, by definition, a barge is a vessel with no means of propulsion, and this is exactly what Joseph Smith described.

I think DrW's reading of the BoM text requires an inference (that the vessels lacked means of propulsion), but it's a reasonable inference. That said, this fellow (who, like DrW, claims to have a lot of maritime experience) finds the description of the Jaredite voyage quite plausible:

Jarediteâ??s Journey by Sea

By Captain Richard Rothery, Ret.

Richard Rothery is a retired sea captain from Australia. Richard has agreed to share with you his thoughts about the journey and barges of the Jaredites. Richard, a member of the Church has spent over 40 years at sea. We are sure you will enjoy this fresh look at the Jaredites. Thank you Richard for sharing your thoughts with us.

...

Biographyâ?¦. For your information and re-assurance my experience totals 40 plus years sea service, starting from a boy in sailing skiffs, through a tough cadetship in the merchant marine, then exams for 2nd Mate to sail as 3rd Mate, then more sea service, then more exams for 1st Mate to sail as 2nd Mate, then more sea service, then final exams for Master mariner F.G.. As standard practice I had another six years sea service as 1st Mate before my first appointment as Master. Later on I sailed as second mate of a brigantine for two months, just for the added experience.

My maternal 2nd great grandfather was a purser in the Royal Navy for fifty years, five of those years as purser/secretary to his friend Admiral Lord Nelson. My father, two brothers and I all achieved foreign going Master, as high as one can go, qualified to command any foreign going vessel, so it was really a family tradition.

My experience covers most types of vessel, tin canoe, skiff, racing yacht, passenger/cargo, bulk carriers to 120,000 tons, oil tankers, Ro-Roâ??s, coastal and overseas, to Singapore, Japan, Pacific islands, Canada, USA, South America, UK. To sea August 1944, so I had one year carrying military supplies in WW2. During my service at sea several typhoons in North Pacific/Japan, one cyclone off NW Australia and southern ocean storms all provided me with excellent experience in avoiding pitfalls by planning and action in accordance with the laws of meteorology and navigation. Ship handling in difficult situations brings much satisfaction. I obtained pilotage exemption certificates involving a thorough knowledge for the ports of Darwin, Newcastle, Sydney, Botany Bay, Port Kembla, Westernport, Burnie and Melbourne. So, in all those ports I brought my own ship in and out, fault free. Ship construction cargo stowage and stability was a favourite study of mine and is of prime importance for both safety and comfort, particularly here in the case of the Jaredites. I would even suggest that, with the same Master of all in charge, these specifications to varying degrees depending on necessity, might have applied to Noahâ??s ark and the ship Nephi built, the ultimate purpose of each being much the same.

...

As we read the Book of Mormon, we are told in Ether 1:33-37, that Jared and his family and friends â??came forthâ?? â??from the great tower at the time the Lord confounded the language of the peopleâ??. â??â?¦

...

Obviously, Ether 2: 6, 7., are describing the journey to the promised land in itâ??s entirety. First they travel in the wilderness, then build barges and travel in them across (the) many waters (oceans and seas being many waters. ) (see also 1 Nephi 17:5 , â??irreantumâ?? meaning â??many watersâ??), being directed continually by the hand of the Lord. I interpret verse 7 as indicating they were not to stop and settle after crossing any sea but continue on to the land of promise. There would have been great temptation to remain permanently at any one of the stopovers where they replenished stocks of fodder for the animals.

This feed would be in the form of bales of dried grasses. Most of the food stocks for the people would consist of sun dried fruit, sun dried meat, grains and also honey, supplemented by fresh fish caught every day through the â??hole in the bottomâ??. Sashimi is a delicacy and a favourite of mine. Fresh fruit and vegetables may also be obtained at the frequent stopovers on the voyage.

So this fellow thinks (contra DrW?) that the Jaredites had stopovers on the voyage (that the 344-day voyage was not a single, uninterrupted stay in the vessels).

And fishing could provide food for the humans.

Abundant supplies of fresh water, up to about 10000 gallons, would be obtained by rain upon the deck, after rinsing the salt away, draining into the side tanks through stoppable valves. Replenished every time it rained and washed the deck clean.

Water supplies from rain. Check.

In verse 16 they are told to get to work and build the barges, to the Lords instructions, â??after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built.â?? Barges have always been used around Babylon on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers transporting cargoes. These, in particular, were small barges, light like a fowl, upon the water.

This is interesting. Did these barges include mechanisms of propulsion and steering?

In verse 20 the Lord tells him to make a hole in the top for air and also in the bottom and if water comes in, in stormy weather, stop the holes that you donâ??t perish in the flood. This indicates the stormy weather would not last long enough for the air to foul too much. In fact the worst of most tropical storms is usually past in about twelve to eighteen hours from my experience.

This fellow allows for times of tranquil weather, which contravenes the strictly literal interpretation of the statement in Ether 6:8 (that the wind "did never cease to blow").

I think that's a fair point. People regularly describe the Pacific Northwest (where I frequently vacation) as a place where it "constantly rains" (or it "rains all the time"). These comments are not, I think, intended to be taken as meaning that rain literally falls everywhere in the Northwest, every minute, every hour, 24/7/365. Just that it rains a lot.

So it is with the wind "did never cease to blow." I think there could have been times of comparative calm weather during the Jaredite voyage.

Verse 24 suggests to some people that these craft were like submarines. Does â??light like a fowl upon the waterâ?? sound like a submarine? No.. However in typhoon conditions the seas would be breaking right over these barges causing those within to think they were under the water.

This is one of the more common micharacterizations I see of the Jaredite voyage (claiming the barges were "submarines" or some such).

Using my knowledge of ship building and ship stability I have drawn a sketch of the barge providing for all the specifications given in the Book of Mormon and suited to the conditions expected on such a voyage. These vessels will provide the occupants with the optimum of safety, comfort and convenience. The dimensions of each barge are important.. length about 70 ft, breadth about 18 ft, depth about 12 ft giving an inside height of about 10ft, inside breadth about 14ft.. The side tanks are about 2 ft wide by 10 ft deep by 40ft length. Total capacity about 10000 gals.. quite adequate for their health and hygiene needs and providing good stability for a smooth ride. Animal capacity equivalent to about twenty sheep or goats and about ten people. Stock feed storage for about two months max with rationing.

Here's his drawing:

So fresh air is circulated throughout and plenty of fresh water for all their needs. A couple of holes in the top for air intake forward and egress aft over the livestock space. The hole in the bottom is situated close by the livestock. It has sides like a well extending up to above the outside water level. The hole in the bottom is an important aspect of maintaining the freshness of the air inside, in that any animal or human waste must be immediately disposed of down the hole to dissipate into the sea.

Fresh air. Managing livestock on a long oceanic voyage. Getting rid of animal and human waste.

Check, check and check.

Here's where this fellow and DrW will disagree: Propulsion. This fellow things that the barges could have had oars and/or sails.

Most people expect all vessels must have sails or some means of propulsion. In this peculiar case that is unnecessary. Yes, most vessels at that time would have sails, and experienced seamen to control and handle them; but only when they have geographical knowledge and therefore courses to steer towards pre-determined waypoints.

Sails without experienced seamen are a definite hazard at the onset of sudden line squalls. If not doused in time they can cause major damage to rigging and often do capsize the vessel. I can assure you that is true from personal experience and from reports of yachtsmen getting into trouble on long ocean voyages where their yachts do sometimes turn turtle. The ocean currents give adequate speed over the ground to make their destination in the time stated. i.e. 344 days.. Ether 6:11. Why wouldnâ??t this theory also apply to Lehiâ??s ship and Noahs ark. They also knew not where they were headed but simply followed the Masterâ??s inspiration. Yes, they would need a rudder to help maintain stern to weather, without broaching, as the winds and currents carried them along as upon a conveyor. This rudder would be essential if the drogue streamed astern breaks up until a fresh one can be streamed. No experienced seamen. They would have to be provided with oars and maybe a small sail on a demountable mast with which to leave or enter a harbour and anchors forward and aft to use when mooring bow in to a beach to afford the means of hauling away from the beach into deep water for departure. Oars, mast and sail etc must be securely stowed below deck as the vessel would occasionally be â??buried in the depths of the sea because of the mountain wavesâ??. (Ether 6:6).. But; like a bottle drifting on the currents, once these barges were at sea their safety was entirely in the hands of the Lord. 24-7. (Ether 6:4).. The Master would ensure they didnâ??t hit any rocks or snags along the way. Being His plan He will cause the wind to blow them in the right directions around the various land masses. (Proverbs 3:5,6.) Ether 6:5 states that the Lord caused a wind to blow across the seas towards the promised land. Sea currents are caused by the prevailing wind which is seasonal as around Asia and the sub continent. For this reason their departure would have to be around the commencement of the SW monsoon across the gulf of Arabia, August. The currents from Oman, around India, down the Malacca strait, up the China coast, past Japan, across the North Pacific and down the west coast. Average current speed over the ground of about 1.25 knots. The distance over that route to Guatemala is roughly 13800 miles. Barge speed through the water is about

[ttribe]

This is one of the more common micharacterizations I see of the Jaredite voyage (claiming the barges were "submarines" or some such).

Here's his drawing:

This is very similar to the model I mentioned in a previous post (built by a Scandinavian fisherman). The main difference I see between that drawing and the model I saw was that the "hole" extended from bottom to top uninterrupted with doors on each side to provide access to the storage and living ares. Interestingly, he initialy said the Book of Ether was a fraud when he read the description of the boats. When he decided to test it out with a model, he found that the columnar "hole" acted as a type of keel that provided quite a bit of stability to the vessel...if I am remembering correctly.

[J Green]

Nibley's comments in Strange Ships and Shining Stones (A Not So Fantastic Story) refer to the holes as not on the top and bottom of the boat but rather on the top and bottom of an air chamber. An interesting approach.

[ttribe]

That is an interesting find. I've also looked at the link you provided for types of barges, and they are varied.

What is your take on the physical constraints which impose themselves on the Jaredites' barges, given the conditions they endured?

What is your take on the sanitation, air, and potable water issues inherent in such a long voyage?

I think SMac's post (Here) is a good start.

[Lance in TX]

Interesting stuff!

So it sounds like fresh air could be plausibly ventilated into the vessels.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Good post!

[DrW]

I think DrW's reading of the BoM text requires an inference (that the vessels lacked means of propulsion), but it's a reasonable inference. That said, this fellow (who, like DrW, claims to have a lot of maritime experience) finds the description of the Jaredite voyage quite plausible:

So this fellow thinks (contra DrW?) that the Jaredites had stopovers on the voyage (that the 344-day voyage was not a single, uninterrupted stay in the vessels).

And fishing could provide food for the humans.

Water supplies from rain. Check.

This is interesting. Did these barges include mechanisms of propulsion and steering?

This fellow allows for times of tranquil weather, which contravenes the strictly literal interpretation of the statement in Ether 6:8 (that the wind "did never cease to blow").

I think that's a fair point. People regularly describe the Pacific Northwest (where I frequently vacation) as a place where it "constantly rains" (or it "rains all the time"). These comments are not, I think, intended to be taken as meaning that rain literally falls everywhere in the Northwest, every minute, every hour, 24/7/365. Just that it rains a lot.

So it is with the wind "did never cease to blow." I think there could have been times of comparative calm weather during the Jaredite voyage.

This is one of the more common micharacterizations I see of the Jaredite voyage (claiming the barges were "submarines" or some such).

Here's his drawing:

Fresh air. Managing livestock on a long oceanic voyage. Getting rid of animal and human waste.

Check, check and check.

Here's where this fellow and DrW will disagree: Propulsion. This fellow things that the barges could have had oars and/or sails.

Interesting stuff!

So it sounds like fresh air could be plausibly ventilated into the vessels.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Smac,

This scenario can be immediately discounted for the purposes of this discussion because it is non-falsifiable. By the authors own words, this scenario requires miracles.

My first response would be to ask why it is even entered for discussion. It is just another magical thinking, fantastical, miracle requiring speculation.

Again we see all kinds of features and systems assumed that are not in the text. These include multiple portholes or hatches with special cowling, sails, masts, rigging, drogues, oars, etc. If we are discussing falsifiability, we should only consider the text in question. Speculation and â??helpful assumptionsâ? should not be allowed.

However, lest anyone think that the present scenario is more plausible than the other scenarios (i.e. because it requires fewer miracles), here are some miracle requiring points to consider.

Sailor or no sailor, the author is badly misinformed as to the ocean currents around Oman (and Fujairah). It would appear that the author has never actually sailed in the Arabian Sea or the Gulf of Oman (I have).

If the author had sailed there, or even consulted ocean current maps, he would know that one can't go east on the currents into which one would have to launch from the southern Arabian Peninsula. As I described in the original post, these currents would carry a powerless vessel down the east coast of Africa (check the charts).

A few more miracle-requiring problems:

It would not be possible (without a miracle) to keep the barges together in a group for 344 days unless they had power and an experienced crew. At one point, the author says that sails would not be necessary and suggests a sea drogue (also not mentioned in the text) might have been used. The author later states that sails might have been used after all, but would require special rigging and a demountable mast. He neglects to explain as to how a mast would be mounded and demounted at sea (with good reason). Which is it? (This kind of â??well maybe or maybe notâ? speculation does not help his credibility.)

Forget the sails and masts and rigging. The account says that the Jaredites were many times buried in the depths of the sea. This statement of the text from Ether is incompatible with sails and masts and rigging, period.

Another feature of the present scenario is a sea drogue (again none is mentioned in Ether, so this is again speculation). In some ways a sea drogue is the opposite of a sail. It is a brake. It will help a vessel downwind from its set, and can keep a vessel from broaching in high winds and heavy seas, but why bother? These vessels were capable of being submerged in the depths of the sea according to the text:

Ether Chapter 6:

6. "And it came to pass that they were many times buried in the depths of the sea, because of the mountain waves which broke upon them, and also the great and terrible tempests which were caused by the fierceness of the wind.

7. And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being atight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the bark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters. "

Stopping over for re-supply along the way without power is another miracle-requiring aspect of the voyage. One doesn ot just "drift" into safe harbor, especially at lower latttudes where rocks and coral reefs abound.

We are to believe that they brought â??flocks and herdsâ? with them (flocks are sheep and herds are goats or cattle). In my original provisioning calculation, I did not include herds because the human requirements alone made the passage impossible. Requiring provisions for any number of sheep, goats or cattle increases the improbability of the story.

Ether 6:

5 "And it came to pass that when they had prepared all manner of afood, that thereby they might subsist upon the water, and also food for their flocks and herds, and bwhatsoever beast or animal or fowl that they should carry with themâ??and it came to pass that when they had done all these things they got aboard of their vessels or barges, and set forth into the sea, commending themselves unto the Lord their God."

In summary, this is just another speculative, miracle-dependant scenario that makes wholly unwarranted and internally inconsistent assumptions. I stand by every word of my original and subsequent posts on this thread. This latest scenario is just as improbable and fantastical as any other and requires no fewer miracles.

[Uncertain]

1. In your view, which LDS truth claims are falsifiable?

In theory just about all of them. In practice very few are amendable to falsification given the current state of affairs.

2. In your view, which LDS truth claims have, in fact, been falsified?

Well how about the creation? The LDS church teaches there was no death before the fall of Adam.

See:

"Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the mortal body. The Fall of Adam brought physical death into the world (see Moses 6:48). Because of the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all mankind will be resurrected and redeemed from physical death. "

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...0004d82620a____

It also teaches that Adam and Eve where the first man and women and are the mother and father of all humans.

"Thus, by being required to leave the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve caused the great plan of happiness to go forward. Mortality came to all living things; procreation began the process of bringing us, the sons and daughters of God, to earth as Adam and Eveâ??s posterity. We who have come here or will yet come agreed to the conditions of mortality in order to participate in the plan, and we counted as a great blessing the opportunity to live in this imperfect world (see Job 38:4â??7). While those who do not understand the plan may feel that all of us are stained with sin when we are born, we know that this is erroneous thinking. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote: â??Adamâ??s transgression was banishment from the presence of God and bringing the physical death into the world. The majority in the religious world maintain that every child born into this world is tainted with â??original sin,â?? or partakes of Adamâ??s transgression in his birth. The second Article of Faith contradicts this foolish and erroneous doctrine.â?

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

(bold added by me)

Both these claims have been more or less falsified. It is abundantly clear death has been on this earth for many millions of years well before humans showed up. And the degree of human genetic variance is such that the hypothesis that all human beings are descended from one breeding pair is very unlikely.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[ttribe]

In summary, this is just another speculative, miracle-dependant scenario that makes wholly unwarranted and internally inconsistent assumptions. I stand by every word of my original and subsequent posts on this thread. This latest scenario is just as improbable and fantastical as any other and requires no fewer miracles.

In summary, this is just another refusal to acknoweldge anything that doesn't coincide with the good Dr.'s worldview. No acknowledgment that "barge" doesn't have to mean what he dogmatically insists it does. No acknowledgment that absence of evidence (regarding sails, etc.) does not mean there is evidence of absence. No acknowledgment that someone else (anyone else) might have knowledge worth his consideration.

[DrW]

In summary, this is just another refusal to acknoweldge anything that doesn't coincide with the good Dr.'s worldview. No acknowledgment that "barge" doesn't have to mean what he dogmatically insists it does. No acknowledgment that absence of evidence (regarding sails, etc.) does not mean there is evidence of absence. No acknowledgment that someone else (anyone else) might have knowledge worth his consideration.

ttribe,

This discussion is concerned with falsifiability. In order to determine if a claim or hypothesis is falsifiable, one considers the claim or hypothesis, as presented.

In this case, we have the Book of Ether account of the claimed Jaredite voyage from the eastern hemisphere to the western hemisphere in barges. No sails, or masts, or rigging, or oars, or nuclear power plants are mentioned.

What we have is water-tight vessels with a hole in the top and the bottom which, we are told, are many times buried in the depth of the sea during a voyage of 344 days.

If we take the claim or hypothesis, as written, then many aspects of it are clearly falsifiable and have been falsified. The falsified aspects (and there are many) are fatal to the overall hypothesis. (Again, if you disagree, think about going to Oman, throwing eight wooden telephone poles in the sea and finding all eight of them washed up at or near one place, and time, anywhere in the western hemisphere within 344 days.)

If you wishe to have other discussions such as "what would it take to get the Jaredites here from the eastern hemisphere in 344 days alive and in one piece" that is a different discussion (and one in which I would be unlikely to participate because it would involve magic and miracles).

[ttribe]

ttribe,

This discussion is concerned with falsifiability. In order to determine if a claim or hypothesis is falsifiable, one considers the claim or hypothesis, as presented.

In this case, we have the Book of Ether account of the claimed Jaredite voyage from the eastern hemisphere to the western hemisphere in barges. No sails, or masts, or rigging, or oars, or nuclear power plants are mentioned.

What we have is water-tight vessels with a hole in the top and the bottom which, we are told, are many times buried in the depth of the sea during a voyage of 344 days.

If we take the claim or hypothesis, as written, then many aspects of it are clearly falsifiable and have been falsified. The falsified aspects (and there are many) are fatal to the overall hypothesis. (Again, if you disagree, think about going to Oman, throwing eight wooden telephone poles in the sea and finding all eight of them washed up at or near one place, and time, anywhere in the western hemisphere within 344 days.)

If you wishes to have other discussions such as "what would it take to get the Jaredites here from the eastern hemisphere in 344 days alive and in one piece" that is a different discussion (and one in which I would be unlikely to participate because it would involve magic and miracles).

In this process you have intentionally set yourself up as the expert who can singlehandedly "falsify" at least some portion of the claims in the Book of Ether. However, you bristle at the mere mention of evidence which might stand contrary to the basic assumptions in your argument. I, for one, find that revealing of your intentions. Clearly, there is no desire for common understanding...you are strictly here to "impart wisdom" and we should, therefore, kneel at the altar of your teachings. No thanks.

Nevertheless, I do find your statement that you are an airline pilot interesting...I have some insight into that psyche...my Dad was an airline pilot for 30 years; flew the DC-3, F-27, DC-9, MD-80 and B-757; retired in '88 from Northwest Airlines.

[gmormon]

...Clearly, there is no desire for common understanding...you are strictly here to "impart wisdom" and we should, therefore, kneel at the altar of your teachings. No thanks.

...

ttribe is this what you had in mind?

[ttribe]

ttribe is this what you had in mind?

Something like that.

[Pahoran]

Okay. Let's start with a simple Bayesian type analysis. We have some 22 people who started the voyage.

Actually there were more. Take another look at your source.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Lance in TX]

This discussion is concerned with falsifiability. In order to determine if a claim or hypothesis is falsifiable, one considers the claim or hypothesis, as presented.

I don't even know why you are asking this. Almost everything taken on faith from any religion has a level of falsifiability. That is why it is called FAITH.

Do you go after other religions like you are or only the LDS religion?

Do you go on Catholic boards and try to prove falsifiability to the resurrection? Or the claim that Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days fasting?

Do you go on Baptist boards? How about Jahova's Whitness boards?

Or do you prefer to do this on LDS related boards?

How about proving falsifiability in Islam? Ever tried that?

What is your motivation? What drives you to try to prove religion false? At least that is what it sounds like you are trying to do.

What do you believe about religion?

[DrW]

In this process you have intentionally set yourself up as the expert who can singlehandedly "falsify" at least some portion of the claims in the Book of Ether. However, you bristle at the mere mention of evidence which might stand contrary to the basic assumptions in your argument. I, for one, find that revealing of your intentions. Clearly, there is no desire for common understanding...you are strictly here to "impart wisdom" and we should, therefore, kneel at the altar of your teachings. No thanks.

Nevertheless, I do find your statement that you are an airline pilot interesting...I have some insight into that psyche...my Dad was an airline pilot for 30 years; flew the DC-3, F-27, DC-9, MD-80 and B-757; retired in '88 from Northwest Airlines.

ttribe,

First of all, I am a commercial pilot (CPL) with multi engine and instrument ratings, not an airline pilot. Your father, as an airline pilot, would have had his ATP ticket. There is a big ifference between the two. Your father would have flown many more hours than I have.

Secondly, I disagree that I have "set myself up" as an expert or anything else. What I did do was my homework on the subject. As a TBM, I sincerely tried to figure out how the journey could have been made as described. Two main events or processes lead me to my current position on the matter. The first, of course, was the process of learning and engaging in ocean sailing.

The second was an assignment in the UAE, which included the investigation of a tanker spill in the Gulf of Oman. (If you would care to check this out, the tanker was the Seiki ,the colliding freighter was the Binuna, and the Emirate impacted was Fujairah.)

We tracked the spill from the air and made trips out into the Gulf with fishermen and on commercial vessels to assess the damage, take water and marine life samples, etc. In designing the oil spill clean-up and remediation plan, we studied the local and regional currents and tides using charts and maps, and experienced them from several types of boats, and as divers.

From this experience, I realized that no drifting object launched from anywhere in this area would drift east. The currents took things west and down the coast of east Africa.

I than began to look at other possible routes. The med was out. It is a bathtub - no helpful currents whatsoever. The Atlantic with a North African or Southwest European launch was out because of the Gulf Stream (in which I have sailed many times).

Then I looked at Nibley's China launch theory for a Pacific crossing. It was plausible in terms of current direction and speed, but would probably have taken 90-120 days, or up to 150 days, max. The China launch theory has some advantages. It lands the Jaredites in present day Washington State or Oregon (on the same currents that bring Japanese fishermen's glass net floats to the west coast of the US).

But why 344 days instead of 90 or 150 days? There is a huge difference between these journey times. The China launch theory does not fit the description in Ether. Also, there are many other problems with the China-Pacific launch theory. It definitely does not land one in Central America, for example. If you want to do that then you have to pick up a narrow easterly current that flows in the tropics. To access this current you would have to pass around the tip of India, through the Indonesian archapeligo (again, possible with a sailboat but extremely improbable for a drifting craft, not to mention eight of them; look at the map) and hence into the Pacific basin. Sailboats can do this. Driftwood cannot.

Then I went to the next level of detail, I did the provisioning. No problem there in terms of weight and volume (for the humans). Having spent time on the ocean in the area, I saw the problem was with food spoilage, and heat exhaustion, and bitumen fumes, and current speed, and sea state along the East African coast, and potable water. If one added live animals to the manifest, things got worse in a hurry, especially for the South Atlantic transit.

The problems just kept mounting (food, water, sanitation, urine and feces, the lack of fire for cooking and boat repair, slow current speeds, etc.).

The greatest problem of all was keeping the flotilla together. From the measurements we made on the oil spill, and from tracking specific parts of the spill, I can tell you that that once the eight barges were a few miles offshore and into the local currents, especially in windy conditions, all eight would have been out of sight of one another within a few days, and would have probably not have been in sight of one another again, ever.

So, I am not trying to be hard core here, I have done my homework. I have discussed this issue with dozens of people, including folks from marine scientists and oceanographers to local fishermen in Khor Fakkan and Fujiarah. The fishermen laugh at the prospect. They know how dangerous it is to lose an engine and become a drifting vessel, even within 10 to 12 miles of shore.

I spend weeks at the spill site. I know what I am talking about.

When I hear a logical alternative that allows the journey to be made without involving involve magic or miracles, I will be the first to acknowledge it and look for additional evidence to confirm or refute it.

So far, all I have seen here are people who are angry that I cannot agree with their unfounded beliefs and have facts to support my position.

If I have offended you in this, I apologize.

[ttribe]

ttribe,

First of all, I am a commercial pilot (CPL) with multi engine and instrument ratings, not an airline pilot. Your father, as an airline pilot, would have had his ATP ticket. There is a big ifference between the two. Your father would have flown many more hours than I have.

Sorry, didn't catch the distinction between commercial and airline in my first read. As I understand it, he was a heck'uva pilot...wish I'd had the chance to fly with him before cancer took him away.

So far, all I have seen here are people who are angry that I cannot agree with their unfounded beliefs and have facts to support my position.

Who's angry and for that reason? I'm not. Annoyed at the stubbornness with which you approach the discussion is more like it.

If I have offended you in this, I apologize.

Only "offended" insomuch as I perceive some of your answers to be treating me (and others) with contempt or using intentionally pejorative terms (like "magic").

By the way, can you at least acknowledge that there is no strict requirement that a "barge" be an unpowered craft? The etymology links I posted earlier seem to disprove that.

[DrW]

Sorry, didn't catch the distinction between commercial and airline in my first read. As I understand it, he was a heck'uva pilot...wish I'd had the chance to fly with him before cancer took him away.

Who's angry and for that reason? I'm not. Annoyed at the stubbornness with which you approach the discussion is more like it.

Only "offended" insomuch as I perceive some of your answers to be treating me (and others) with contempt or using intentionally pejorative terms (like "magic").

By the way, can you at least acknowledge that there is no strict requirement that a "barge" be an unpowered craft? The etymology links I posted earlier seem to disprove that.

I am sorry to hear that your father has passed away. Airline pilots can have a great lifestyle. They can collect a lot of adventures and great stories, especially if they fly internationally. I have great respect for pilots, in general, and would guess that he was probably a heck'uva father as well as a pilot.

No problem with the barge definition: â??I hereby acknowledge that there are alternative definitions for the term "barge", one or more of which imply either sail or oar powerâ?.

(However, I must also note that the first and most used definition of "barge" is an unpowered vessel, and that the book of Ether mentions the word "barge" and indicates no power source. Furthermore, according to the subsequent description of the barges in question, no power source such as sails or oars are possible. Sailboats can't be "buried in the depths of the sea", nor can oar powered boats, for obvious reasons. -- Sorry).

Have a great evening.

[Stargazer]

"Similar" is being VERY generous in my view. Humans have an incredible ability to find what we are looking for. If I want to see a cow shape in the clouds I am very likely to see one. However, a disinterested observer is NOT likely to see a cow.

Unless, of course, there IS a cloud shaped like a cow. Then we come down to whether it's a Jersey or a Guernsey.

[DrW]

I don't even know why you are asking this. Almost everything taken on faith from any religion has a level of falsifiability. That is why it is called FAITH.

Do you go after other religions like you are or only the LDS religion?

Do you go on Catholic boards and try to prove falsifiability to the resurrection? Or the claim that Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days fasting?

Do you go on Baptist boards? How about Jahova's Whitness boards?

Or do you prefer to do this on LDS related boards?

How about proving falsifiability in Islam? Ever tried that?

What is your motivation? What drives you to try to prove religion false? At least that is what it sounds like you are trying to do.

What do you believe about religion?

Lance,

It appears that you misunderstand the point of the discussion. As described by Sir Karl Popper and others, hypotheses involving supernatural intervention (i.e. miracles or magic) are generally NOT falsifiable.

Falsifiability is the first requirement that a hypothesis must meet in order to be testable.

If one has two or more hypotheses that have near equal probability of being valid (or true), based on weight of evidence, then the best hypothesis is the one requiring the fewest assumptions or contingencies. This principle is known as Occam's razor.

As to the rest of your questions, I was born in the Church and was a faithful, tithe paying, temple married, calling accepting member for many years. I am also a professional scientist and have spent a great deal of time in Islamic countries, where I became interested in the many similarities between Islam and Mormonism.

This led me to further study of the two religions. From this study, I learned that the history of the LDS Church is actually far from what members are led to believe. As I began to apply some simple rules for determining the validity of claims in science, I found that those claims that form the foundation of the Church are largely invalid. That is, as others have suggested on this thread, the overwhelming weight of evidence is that many (if not most) of the falsifiable truth claims of the Church are invalid (falsified). Many more claims made by the Church are not falsifiable and can therefore not be tested.

I have no problem with people who choose to believe in these invalid claims. As a scientist, I do have a problem when people state that the principles and teachings of the Church are not in conflict with science and logic. As a member of this board, I sometimes post to refute such claims, when they are made, using facts instead of faith.

As I stated earlier, my intent here is not to offend. My intent is simply to point out where faith and fact are incompatible. Unlike Boyd K. Packer, I do not believe that "some truths are not helpful", and I do not believe that the "mantle" supercedes the intellect.

As to the rest of your questions, I do not participate on other boards. The reason I participate here is because I still have TBM family and friends and believe that it is important for them to have the opportunity for a dose of reality now and then.

I hope this response answers your questions.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

I thought of 2 more falsifiable things.

1. Tithing as observed by the church as compared to the Mosaic teachings with regards to tithing. There very different.

2. Deacons serving communion rather than the leadership. In reading the accounts of the last supper Jesus very clearly indicated that the apostles, (those who would be the leaders) were to serve the congregation.

[sleepyhead]

I don't even know why you are asking this. Almost everything taken on faith from any religion has a level of falsifiability. That is why it is called FAITH.

Do you go after other religions like you are or only the LDS religion?

Do you go on Catholic boards and try to prove falsifiability to the resurrection? Or the claim that Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days fasting?

Do you go on Baptist boards? How about Jahova's Whitness boards?

Or do you prefer to do this on LDS related boards?

How about proving falsifiability in Islam? Ever tried that?

What is your motivation? What drives you to try to prove religion false? At least that is what it sounds like you are trying to do.

What do you believe about religion?

Hello Lance,

If you don't want to read anything that contradicts your faith system why don't you limit your forum activity to fellowship forums? If your here that means you want to try your hand at apologetic s.