Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

Pi in Bible: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html

Do we not allow Scripture to be wrong?

See Title Page of Book of Mormon.

Edited January 31, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

Zerinus:

Pi in Bible: http://www.abarim-pu..._The_Bible.html

Do we not allow Scripture to be wrong?

See Title Page of Book of Mormon.

It is sad that we allow for errors in scripture but there are some who see no error in the proclamations of science.

[thesometimesaint]

There may be some that do. But I'm not one of them. Show me a better Theory, convince me, I'll believe you.

Ps; A Theory is just the best explanation we have for a natural event at the time. A new Theory can come along at any time and upend the old one. Such is the nature of science it is always tentative.

Edited January 31, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

cdowis,

The scientific consensus is built on facts. It is the distillation of thousands of facts.

I hope you understand that I have had this conversation several dozen times. The geocentric view of the universe was built upon an obvious fact -- there was thousands, millions of observations that the sun revolved around the earth. This has has happened throughout all of the known civilizations, by millions of people over a hundred thousands of years.

Do you understand the concept that the interpretation of millions, hundreds of millions of facts is not the fact itself, but only the interpretation of those facts.

I can give you many recent examples of where the scientific consensus was competely and totallly wrong. Consensus of opinion is based on faith that the interpretation of those facts are correct.

I asked you about sampling error, for example. So your millions of data points are insufficient to draw a correct conclusion if significant data is MISSING. You are basing your conclusion on faith, a flawed faith on incomplete data.

And that is a fact.

The facts are that A, B, C, D and X haplogroups were all represented in the pre-Columbian Amerindian founding lineages prior to their migrations through Beringia from Siberia to the New World.

But this type of Haplogroup X is not the same as that found among the Native Americans. Read the research articles carefully. Your faith-based conclusions have blinded you to this basic fact, spelled out clearly in that article. The authors themselves admit that this research was not conclusive.

Also they were unable to prove the **direction** of the migration. Your faith based conclusion is that it flowed from Siberia, rather than the other direction, from the Americas. For someone who claims to be grounded in science, I find your thinking rather flawed.

Due to the period of reproductive isolation from the sister clades of this group, (an isolation of at least 10,000 years), by the time the New World Amerindians finally arrived in North America and started expanding south and east, they were genetically distinct from their Old World ancestors, regardless of haplogroup.

OK, so you agree that one cannot draw definitive conclusions about these millions of data points, regarding the origin of the DNA. For example, we know that the Druse, a middle eastern race, also has haplogroup X as well. And the scientists, as far as I know, have not even investigated that possible source because.... well, it is impossible that people from the middle east migrated to the Americas. Scientists have a common consensus that such a migration is impossible. That is a fundamental statement of faith.

Your request to see the "missing DNA samples of the extinct Amerindians" and for me to tell you the sources of the X haplogroup indicates that you do not have a sufficient understanding of the science involved here to even ask relevant questions. What extinct Amerindians would you be referring to, for example?

"You judt don't understand." Are you so ignorant of American history that you do not know that a majority of the Amnerindians went extinct. Read the book "1491" to get yourself educated. You are still stuck in the old myths we learned in high school.

I agree that I do not understand your faith. It does not make sense to me, and is based, as I see it, on ignorance, and falwed logic. You are unable to comprehend that these conclusions are based on sampling error, and insufficient revelant data. We will have to agree to disagree.

And why would their DNA be important if we supposedly have Lamanite DNA in American Indians and Polynesian populations that are alive today?

Again, it simply does not matter what Lehite DNA (mtDNA) might have looked like (had it ever existed). Any insertion of Old World mtDNA from trans-oceanic migration into the pre-Columbian New World genome would be detectable.

Sigh. Your ignorance is breathtaking. I have neither the time nor the inclination to give you references. Look it up yourself, please. Needless to say, you leap over logical fallacies with a single bound. You simply deny the flaws in your belief system with a wave of the hand.

Edited January 31, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

deleted

Edited January 31, 2012 by cdowis

[ERayR]

There may be some that do. But I'm not one of them. Show me a better Theory, convince me, I'll believe you.

Ps; A Theory is just the best explanation we have for a natural event at the time. A new Theory can come along at any time and upend the old one. Such is the nature of science it is always tentative.

Then why the undying faith placed in them?

[Mariner]

cdowis said:

Sigh. Your ignorance is breathtaking. I have neither the time nor the inclination to give you references. Look it up yourself' date=' please. Needless to say, you leap over logical fallacies with a single bound. You simply deny the flaws in your belief system with a wave of the hand.[/b']

cdowis.

What I have explained and stated on this thread (with peer reviewed references) reflects the strong and evidence-based scientific consensus on the matter. Since my position is based on evidence rather than unfounded belief, I happen to be in pretty good shape on this issue.

You, on the other hand, regardless of your huffing and puffing and gratuitous insults, are in an untenable position. You can't cite any up-to-date and credible peer reviewed references to support your position because there aren't any.

My suggestion to you at this point would be the same as to Mariner: simply bear testimony of your unfounded belief in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and try to keep from reading any scientific papers relevant to the issue (as you have apparently managed to do to date).

Edited January 31, 2012 by Mariner

[cdowis]

cdowis.

What I have explained and stated on this thread (with peer reviewed references) reflects the strong and evidence-based scientific consensus on the matter. Since my worldview is based on evidence rather than unfounded belief, I am in pretty good shape on this issue.

You, on the other hand, regardless of your huffing and puffing and gratuitous insults, are in an untenable position. You can't cite any up to date and credible peer reviewed references to support your position because there aren't any.

My suggestion to you at this point would be the same as to Mariner: simply bear testimony of you unfounded belief in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and try to keep from reading any scientific papers relevant to the issue (as you have apparently managed to do to date).

What exactly are my claims? Please cut from my posts, and paste it in your comments. Do you tell us what you think I said, but quote my exact words. I am asking you questions, and I cite my reasons for those questions -- common consensus and I cite the geocentric theory, DNA research and I cite sampling error.

I am only demonstratng that there are very large factual and logical gaps in your statements.

Opinion/speculation./consensus of opinon is not a fact, and often falls into the realm of geocentric theories, which was proven by millions of data points. All you can offer is YOUR testimony based on inconclusive research based on sampling errors and incomplete data.

I know you find this painful, question your faith and that you are unable to respond with facts, so let's start with one issue -- sampling error. Since you are ignorant of the basics of the history of Native Americans, please do your homework on their vast extinction by looking at articles and perhaps the book "1491". Get back to us when you have done your research.

And while you are at it, give us one **current** peer reviewed article which says that it is impossible that there was migration from the middle east. Tell us specifically where they got their samples from ancient (pre-dysporia) Israelite populations, and a wide sampling of the ancient inhabitants in the Americans (specifically mesoamerica).

Why not bring out the article on the source of Haplogroup X. Let's read together what the authors themselves said about their research related to proving the Siberian connection to the Native Americans. You basically agreed, with your comment on diversion, that it proves NOTHING. And what about the Druse as a source of Haplogroup X. In a personal conversion with Dr Brown at Emory, he mentioned the Druse as having that characteristic. Have scientists explored that possibility?

Finally, may I point out that "not found, not exist" is a logical fallacy. With the sampling bias and errors, I propose it is not possible to draw such a definitive conclusion. Do you want a peer reviewed on the effect of sampling errors on research? Sorry, I have no such article.

Edited January 31, 2012 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

I do not put my faith in them. I can demonstrate with reasonable accuracy what is printed in recognized scientific journal, such as Science. But faith no.

Ps. I have faith that science can and is nearly always wrong, at least in some detail, and something more accurate will come along. Kinda like my religion.

See Article of Faith #9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Edited January 31, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Mariner]

cdowis: "Mariner, I believe that the American Indians and Polynesians are actually Lamanites that are descended from a group of Jews that made an ocean voyage to the New World approximately 600 BC, as claimed by Joseph Smith and any number of Prophets Seers and Revelators since Joseph Smith."

Mariner: "Very interesting, what evidence do you have for your claim?"

cdowis: "Well actually there is no archeological, linguistic or genetic evidence for my claim, if that is what you mean. But I have this book that says it is so, and so I believe it. And I know I am right, and I will bet you a hundred dollars that you cannot prove me wrong."

Mariner: "Are you aware that there is a strong scientific consensus based on thousands upon thousands of samples, including up to 6,000 samples analyzed by faithful Mormons, that the pre-Columbian Amerindians were all descended from four main lineages that arrived here in North America starting approximately 15,000 years ago from Siberia, and that there is no evidence genetic or archeological or lingiuistic evidence of any trans-oceanic migration to the New World since that time?"

cdowis: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Mariner: "Well, cdowis, you've certainly got me there, alright. Here, take my wallet. There is a fresh, crisp one hundred dollar bill in there - trust me. And if you can't seem to find it, remember that I claim it is in there and that the mere absence of evidence that it is there is not evidence that it is absent. Don't spend it all in one place."

Edited January 31, 2012 by Mariner

[cdowis]

cdowis: "Mariner, I believe that the American Indians and Polynesians are actually Lamanites that are descended from a group of Jews that made an ocean voyage to the New World approximately 600 BC, as claimed by Joseph Smith and any number of Prophets Seers and Revelators since Joseph Smith."

Mariner: "Very interesting, what evidence do you have for your claim?"

cdowis: "Well actually there is no archeological, linguistic or genetic evidence for my claim, if that is what you mean. But I have this book that says it is so, and so I believe it. And I know I am right, and I will bet you a hundred dollars that you cannot prove me wrong."

Mariner: "Are you aware that there is a strong scientific consensus based on thousands upon thousands of samples, including up to 6,000 samples analyzed by faithful Mormons, that the pre-Columbian Amerindians were all descended from four main lineages that arrived here in North America starting approximately 15,000 years ago from Siberia, and that there is no evidence genetic or archeological or lingiuistic evidence of any trans-oceanic migration to the New World since that time?"

cdowis: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Mariner: "Well, cdowis, you've certainly got me there, alright. Here, take my wallet. There is a fresh, crisp one hundred dollar bill in there - trust me. And if you can't seem to find it, remember that I claim it is in there and that the mere absence of evidence that it is there is not evidence that it is absent. Don't spend it all in one place."

Is this the best you can do? I knew that you would do something like this. I made a request that you copy directly from my posts -- I have no interest in participating in your fantasy conversations,

When you are willing to have a real conversation, let me know.

Edited January 31, 2012 by cdowis

[zerinus]

π = circumference/diameter = (according to the scripture above) 30 cubits/10 cubits = 3. See also 2 Chron 7:2~5.

Lehi

Zerinus:

Pi in Bible: http://www.abarim-pu..._The_Bible.html

Do we not allow Scripture to be wrong?

See Title Page of Book of Mormon.

You guys need to go back to school and learn to do your sums. First of all those measurements are approximations. They were not meant to be accurate enough for you to obtain an accurate measurement for Pi. Secondly, it says that it was a hand breadth thick. That gives you plenty of leeway to err on the side of approximation. Which rim was used to take the measurement, the inner rim or the outer rim, or half way in between? Thirdly (and most importantly), the calculation of pi=3 is actually correct. Pi is an irrational number, and any calculation of Pi will always be an approximation. You make it as accurate as you want it to be for the purpose intended. For some purposes 3 is accurate enough. For other purposes 3.14 will be accurate enough. For others, 3.14159 will be accurate enough. For other purposes, 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 ... may not be enough. So yes, Pi=3 is correct, for the level of accuracy one expects of the measurement involved.

Edited February 1, 2012 by zerinus

[altersteve]

cdowis: "Mariner, I believe that the American Indians and Polynesians are actually Lamanites that are descended from a group of Jews that made an ocean voyage to the New World approximately 600 BC, as claimed by Joseph Smith and any number of Prophets Seers and Revelators since Joseph Smith."

Mariner: "Very interesting, what evidence do you have for your claim?"

cdowis: "Well actually there is no archeological, linguistic or genetic evidence for my claim, if that is what you mean. But I have this book that says it is so, and so I believe it. And I know I am right, and I will bet you a hundred dollars that you cannot prove me wrong."

Mariner: "Are you aware that there is a strong scientific consensus based on thousands upon thousands of samples, including up to 6,000 samples analyzed by faithful Mormons, that the pre-Columbian Amerindians were all descended from four main lineages that arrived here in North America starting approximately 15,000 years ago from Siberia, and that there is no evidence genetic or archeological or lingiuistic evidence of any trans-oceanic migration to the New World since that time?"

cdowis: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Mariner: "Well, cdowis, you've certainly got me there, alright. Here, take my wallet. There is a fresh, crisp one hundred dollar bill in there - trust me. And if you can't seem to find it, remember that I claim it is in there and that the mere absence of evidence that it is there is not evidence that it is absent. Don't spend it all in one place."

Okay, really?

Come on, Mariner. Even I expected better from you. This is absolutely pathetic. Either actually make an attempt to intelligently respond to what cdowis actually said, or consider taking your crap elsewhere.

Edited January 31, 2012 by altersteve

[Mariner]

cdowis and altersteve,

I am the one who has provided peer reviewed science papers to back my position.

I am the one who showed that none of the papers provided in a reading list that was supposed to support the LDS position on the Book of Mormon actually did so.

I am the one who even cited an paper by a lead scientist at an LDS affiliated genetics research institute that supported my position.

The two of you, on the other hand, have produced exactly zero peer reviewed papers to back your claims (whatever they are). All you seem capable of doing is thinking up ways to try to obfuscate and derail such as asking me to "copy and paste" your claims. If you have any credible scientific evidence that supports the Book of Mormon claims, you should present it. Nothing that any of the Book of Mormon narrative advocates have presented thus far on this thread helps their (or your) case. So at this point, you are batting zero.

Here is the bottom line: either you have credible archeological, linguistic or genetic evidence to back up the Book of Mormon narrative regarding pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migrations to the New World, or you do not.

I have referenced a few of the peer reviewed papers that support my position. If you missed these, just go back along the thread and click on the links I have provided.

Rather than all the posturing, why not simply show the credible scientific data that supports your position? If you cannot show any such credible peer reviewed references, why not just admit that they do not exist and let it go at that?

I will keep an eye on the thread to see if either of you are able to do so. However, I am not holding my breath.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Mariner

[cdowis]

cdowis and altersteve,

I am the one who has provided peer reviewed science papers to back my position.

I am the one who showed that none of the papers provided in a reading list that was supposed to support the LDS position on the Book of Mormon actually did so.

I am the one who even cited an paper by a lead scientist at an LDS affiliated genetics research institute that supported my position.

The two of you, on the other hand, have produced exactly zero peer reviewed papers to back your claims (whatever they are). All you seem capable of doing is thinking up ways to try to obfuscate and derail such as asking me to "copy and paste" your claims. If you have any credible scientific evidence that supports the Book of Mormon claims, you should present it. Nothing that any of the Book of Mormon narrative advocates have presented thus far on this thread helps their (or your) case. So at this point, you are batting zero.

Here is the bottom line: either you have credible archeological, linguistic or genetic evidence to back up the Book of Mormon narrative regarding pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migrations to the New World, or you do not.

I have referenced a few of the peer reviewed papers that support my position. If you missed these, just go back along the thread and click on the links I have provided.

Are you going to address my questions? You are free to quote from those peer reviewed articles, if you wish. It is your opinion that they support your position, so you should not be so fearful to answer a few questions, nicht wahr?

Rather than all the posturing, why not simply show the credible scientific data that supports your position?

Why don't you show us what my position is -- giving specific citations from my posts, either from this thread or from the 7500 posts. My "position" should be very easy to find.

But you will discover that my interest is not to make assertions to impress you with my position, but to demonstrate that your assertions are unproved, unprovable, flawed.

Why don't you answer my questions?

If you cannot show any such credible peer reviewed references, why not just admit that they do not exist and let it go at that?

OK, there is not any articles that can justify your position. They are logically flawed, which is obvious from your lack of response.

I will keep an eye on the thread to see if either of you are able to do so. However, I am not holding my breath.

In my opinion, you are basing your assertions on fantasy and faith.

"Peer reviewed" has become your testimony to answer any doubts you may have. You have allowed others to do your thinking.

I have taken the time and effort to discuss the haplogroup X, and you clearly did not understand the logic behind this article. You actually thought that it "supported" your position. Now, bring some of your high priests here on this forum and let's see what they have to say about this conversation. You might even find that they disagree with your conclusions, that their research does not mean what you think it does. You will not be able to hide behind the mantra of "peer review".

Edited February 1, 2012 by cdowis

[Mariner]

cdowis said:

There is a reason they are called soft sciences.

You will understand if I take your comments less seriously with pretty much each post you make. Your inclusion of archeology and genetics under the definition of "soft sciences" is yet another indication that your claimed experience with peer review may well be less significant than you would have us believe, and that you really do not have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to population genetics, or indeed, science in general.

Please see the definition of "hard sciences" and "soft sciences" as shown below.

Fields of the natural, physical, and computing sciences are often described as hard sciences, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described asthe soft sciences.

As natural sciences, neither genetics or archeology are soft sciences. As you can see (and would have known had you simply checked) both are, in fact, hard sciences.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Mariner

[altersteve]

Right, so anyway, are you going to actually respond intellingetly to cdowis at all and answer his questions, Mariner?

[Mariner]

Right, so anyway, are you going to actually respond intellingetly to cdowis at all and answer his questions, Mariner?

altersteve,

If you are a father, you have probably had a child who, at some point, would engage in the "Why?" rhetorical game with you. No matter how specifically you answer some initial question, or a few follow on questions, the child's response continues to be "Why?". or, "But why daddy?." I had children of a certain age who could keep this kind of questioning going for long periods of time. With my kids I would play along, however, because I noticed that they were actually paying attention and would retain much of the information provided them during these games.

I find myself in a similar situation here. We have an individual who will not read or cannot understand the references, yet insists that there are "flaws" in the work. This individual asks questions that are irrelevant to the issue at hand either out of lack of understanding or an attempt to obfuscate or derail. He claims to have been involved in the scientific peer review process yet demonstrates, without prompting, that he does not have a grasp of some of the most basic terms used to describe science, let alone the science itself.

As I stated in an earlier post, if cdowis were to come up with one or more recent, credible, peer reviewed scientific papers with results that contradict my position or tend to support the Book of Mormon narrative while militating against to the scientific consensus, I would be happy to re-engage.

(BTW: You might also wish to check your spelling of the word "intelligently" in your above post.)

Edited February 1, 2012 by Mariner