Bowtiemenace Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Besides, even if you agree with my reasoning it doesn't matter. The current lamanites are the descendants of the enemies of the nephites, as shown by the definition from 1 Jacob. If the tribes in NA had run into the Nephites its likely they would have become lamanites, not nephites or allies, or at least many of them. So there could be Lamanites in NA. There's also the later dissemination theory, which fits the data too. Either way. Unlimited Geography and Heartland Models have no evidence for them. 1
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Wow, you must really hate intelligent philosophers (and just reason in general.) I find it funny how heartlanders don't believe in evolution as much as limited mesoamerican geography people do. Do you believe in Evolution by any chance.Ok. I'll tell you what. Start doing the calculations. Nobody traveled in any direction farther than 200 miles in the Book of Mormon. There's absolutely no way they moved over ten thousand miles (I think its more than that) from South America to New York. Yes and snow, blankets, and heavy skins aren't mentioned in the Book of Mormon. You also realize that there are NO volcanoes anywhere except in Mesoamerica and South America. (And Utah area, but nobody has even considered that area as a Book of Mormon place.) If you accept the limited heartland model (It appears you don't even accept that. That's what John Wayne may preaches and that's smarter than the unlimited model, which is just ridiculous.) Then there couldn't have been any eruptions. The hundreds of little things like this are why real scholars don't accept the heartland model or an unlimited theory. Real scholars don't just write for money. They're trained, intelligent, professors (like at BYU.) Scholars realize that that's not what the Book of Mormon points to, or the archaeological evidence. Here's a further analysis into your comments:You expect me to believe that they wore only a loin cloth in the winter? No they probably stay in their tents with blankets and fires, except when they go hunting where they probably have skins like every other tribe in the winter. They might have worn loin clothes in the summer. If you think you can survive outside with just loinclothes below zero degrees, you're expecting me to believe something that's physiologically impossible. You'd freeze in 30 minutes about, I think. The problem with heartland model is also not just that snow and blankets aren't mentioned, but that they warred in the winter in loin clothes! Wars don't last 5 minutes, and the lamanites would be completely dead. Also, if it was cold wouldn't for convenience the lamanites put something on? Its not hard to steal technology from other people (like the Nephites who had breastplates. It also says in the Book of Mormon that they wore extremely fine clothes. That's the Nephites class distinction. For us its a house or a car. For them it was clothes.) Yes, and they didn't have major, multi-day battles in the winter, I'm assuming (If they did they probably wore their blankets outside, so they aren't just wearing loinclothes.) Remember the lamanites were naked in the winter except for loinclothes. Blankets aren't mentioned in the Book of Mormon, or snow. Bottom line is: the unlimited and limited heartland models are ridiculous. Let me start that my conclusions are that the Meso-american model is correct. That being said you have some iffy assumptions. 1) One can not say that nobody traveled over two hundred miles. 2) There is volcanic activity in numerous locations in the US. There are a couple more that I might have some minor quibbles with. Oh by the way I do have some serious disagreements with Macro-evolution.
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 ... 1. If Central Americans are the Lamanites. Then they will Blossom as the rose. There is another prophecy, which states that if the Gentiles don't turn to the true church they will be swept off the face of the earth.2. Central Americans are the Lamanites, (Combined with Spaniard Genes) so we see this occuring. Yes but they are all coming North to do it.
Calm Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) Hagoth was noted for traveling quite a distance.You are young (not a bad thing, just that there are things one doesn't forget if one lives through them and so one would have to be young for them not to have registered....)Mount St. Helens...http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/north-america.htmlDo you mean Wayne May? Edited July 16, 2014 by calmoriah
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Yes, I know about Mount St. Helens, there are volcanoes in Utah, Yellowstone in Colorado, etc. My point is, there are no volcanoes in Ohio or in that area. There's a big difference. As far as I know the North East is volcanically dead. I could be wrong on that front though... Yes, I meant Wayne May, not John Wayne May, sorry. Yes but they are all coming North to do it.So? 1) One can not say that nobody traveled over two hundred miles.Actually, yes you can. It took the runner 22 days (or was it 21) to get from one end of Nephite territory to the other in the Book of Alma. Taking into account a super high maximum speed, that's under 200 miles. Remember too, the cities in the Book of Mormon don't really change that much. I think Zarahemla is mentioned in Mormon actually, (I could be wrong on that one.) Either way though, the dates, marching speeds. You get reasonable estimates and those are nowhere near New York.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I just checked your Volcano map. It perfectly backs me up on that. If there was limited North Eastern geography, then the Book of Mormon would be false, because its clearly referring to a Volcanic eruption in 3 Nephi. 1
Calm Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 You will find, bowtie, if you haven't already that if you aren't relatively precise in descriptions, people will point it out.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Ah, and on macroevolution. You realize the fossil record for human evolution is stronger than for any other animal? You also realize that its been demonstrated mathematically that its possible for evolution to account for the complexity in life we see today? You also realize that evolution fits extremely well into Mormon theology, as does human evolution? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dCXTizhYv0 - Part Onehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wJ-PNq94uk - Part Two Just saying... It seems by far the best theory for how God created us...
rodheadlee Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Yes but they are all coming North to do it.Been to Panama City lately? Escazu, or San Jose, Costa Rica? They are blossoming, Columbia has a rapidly growing middle class as well as Mexico. I would guess Guatemalans and Hondurans are leaving to escape the violence. 3
JAHS Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Lucy Mack Smith said the following in her 1853 autobiography:"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them" (Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents) Joseph told these stories before he translated the Book of Mormon, so he supposedly got all this information from the Angel Moroni with whom he met often and saw these things probably in visions. So there's no doubt Joseph knew much about the ancient Americans that is not in the Book of Mormon, perhaps including where on the American continent it happened. 2
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 16, 2014 Author Posted July 16, 2014 Oh by the way I do have some serious disagreements with Macro-evolution. We know, we debated that about 100 times. We know you will never be open to Macro-Evolution, you are just open to your anti-Evolution websites. 1
Bob Crockett Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I certainly have read very capable scientific attacks on evolution and am currently reading a great book on evolutionary biology and DNA evidence of world population migration. I'll never know in this life which is correct. 1
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I certainly have read very capable scientific attacks on evolution and am currently reading a great book on evolutionary biology and DNA evidence of world population migration. I'll never know in this life which is correct.No, they aren't capable scientific attacks. You think they are. You obviously no nothing about science. (But that's ok, you're a heartland modeler anyways.) Bottom line is, there is absolutely no attack against evolution that withstands any real scrutiny. What you're reading is evangelical apologetics. You won't understand that they're liars until you do some fact checking though. I'd recommend doing it. Its like what the evangelicals did with radiocarbon dating for years. They talked about countless supposed "holes" in radiocarbon dating that were based on a fundamental misunderstanding (or should I say misstating, they lie all the time) of the science. Now we do know there are holes, but it wasn't any of the holes that the evangelicals proposed. It was what real scientists proposed. When there are solar flares, the radioactive decay rate changes. In other words, the earth is younger than we once thought. Now is the earth 7000 years old? No, obviously not. We have over 100 methods of dating the earth to where we know its not 7000 years old, so it doesn't matter for there case. It just shows the earth isn't as young. Evolution is the same way. We know it occurs for sure, because the information comes from like 10 sciences. (And direct observation) There is no dispute among real scientists about evolution. Only crazy evangelical apologists.
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Yes, I know about Mount St. Helens, there are volcanoes in Utah, Yellowstone in Colorado, etc. My point is, there are no volcanoes in Ohio or in that area. There's a big difference. As far as I know the North East is volcanically dead. I could be wrong on that front though... Yes, I meant Wayne May, not John Wayne May, sorry. So? Actually, yes you can. It took the runner 22 days (or was it 21) to get from one end of Nephite territory to the other in the Book of Alma. Taking into account a super high maximum speed, that's under 200 miles. Remember too, the cities in the Book of Mormon don't really change that much. I think Zarahemla is mentioned in Mormon actually, (I could be wrong on that one.) Either way though, the dates, marching speeds. You get reasonable estimates and those are nowhere near New York. Actually you can't. All those estimates do is give an estimate of the size of Book of Mormon lands. It does not limit travel beyond the borders. As Calmoriah has pointed out Hagoth traveled extensively.
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) No, they aren't capable scientific attacks. You think they are. You obviously no nothing about science. (But that's ok, you're a heartland modeler anyways.) Bottom line is, there is absolutely no attack against evolution that withstands any real scrutiny. What you're reading is evangelical apologetics. You won't understand that they're liars until you do some fact checking though. I'd recommend doing it. MormonFreeThinker is that you with a new name? Edited July 16, 2014 by ERayR
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Bacteria Evolving on a human timescale:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U8aanfldWroFish Evolving on a human timescale:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1358316/Atlantic-tomcod-immune-Hudson-Rivers-toxic-chemicals-just-50-YEARS.html Do you want me to continue? Lol, there's almost no chance evolution is not factual.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Actually you can't. All those estimates do is give an estimate of the size of Book of Mormon lands. It does not limit travel beyond the borders. As Calmoriah has pointed out Hagoth traveled extensively. Ok? And the armies of Mormon went on a boat to New York? Sorry, not buying it. Sure, i'm sure some people left the Nephite lands (I'm not saying they didn't.) But the Book of Mormon takes place within 300 miles. There's a difference. The Nephite writers stay within that area. Honestly, FARMS has done tons of stuff on this. I'll go find an article.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Actually the mesoamerican thesis rests on Moroni traveling outside of the lands. Definitely not excluded.
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Bacteria Evolving on a human timescale:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U8aanfldWroFish Evolving on a human timescale:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1358316/Atlantic-tomcod-immune-Hudson-Rivers-toxic-chemicals-just-50-YEARS.html Do you want me to continue? Lol, there's almost no chance evolution is not factual. What you have overlooked is that after all this evolving they are still bacteria and fish. Just different bacteria and fish. I can give you literally thousands of examples of evolving animals but in all cases they are still the same animal they started as.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Ok? And over time this wouldn't change. (As the fossil record, computer simulations and mathematics shows?)
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Of course it would change. Its right in front of your eyes. Just saying...
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change = new species. Agreed?
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Ok? And the armies of Mormon went on a boat to New York? Sorry, not buying it. Sure, i'm sure some people left the Nephite lands (I'm not saying they didn't.) But the Book of Mormon takes place within 300 miles. There's a difference. The Nephite writers stay within that area. Honestly, FARMS has done tons of stuff on this. I'll go find an article. Which is it two hundred miles or three hundred miles.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 If a fish were to grow 2 more fins, be able to breath in water and outside of water, and could eat a different food from its most recent relatives then that would be a different species (and an amphibian.) Oh wait! We've observed organisms getting gills and un-getting gills in the fossil record! So evolution does change species. Here's another interesting thing on that. Its about our parathyroid. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4067039.stmhttp://www.pnas.org/content/101/51/17716.full And you still think we don't come from some fish? Seriously, that's ridiculous.
Recommended Posts