Mesoamerican Theory Predictions

[ERayR]

The Queen is still head of state and has a rep in the government, iirc, governor general.

 

I feel sorry for the Canadians having to pay homage to the usurper Stuart line.  I am a descendent of the Plantagenet line by the way.   

[USU78]

I feel sorry for the Canadians having to pay homage to the usurper Stuart line.  I am a descendent of the Plantagenet line by the way. 

 

Now hold on there, I'm descended from the Royal Stuart line, and those upstart Krauts with the weak chins that drove out Bonnie Prince Charlie when he pressed his rightful claims are decidedly NOT Stuarts.

[ERayR]

Now hold on there, I'm descended from the Royal Stuart line, and those upstart Krauts with the weak chins that drove out Bonnie Prince Charlie when he pressed his rightful claims are decidedly NOT Stuarts.

 

Don't you just love it?

[MormonFreeThinker]

I do admit that if we're looking for naturalistic explanations for events in the Book of Mormon, a volcanic eruption (or eruptions) would definitely explain the earthquakes and subsequent "darkness" if an ash cloud covered the land.

 

You are missing the point, can you predict when some volcanoes erupted without looking at the data? When was the last time Yellowstone erupted? Don't Google it please. The Mesoamerican model predicted that Volcanoes erupted near Book of Mormon cities around 30 Ad. 

 

See the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program, See Eruptive History 

 

The three volcanoes that fit Sorenson's limited area did erupt around 30 AD (3 Nephi) 

Here is a 1955 Sorenson map 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography/Models/Limited/Sorenson_1955

He didn't cherry pick the volcanoes because he didn't have that information available. 

 

El Chichón

Eruption in 0020 BCE (margin of error ± 50 years) out of 11 eruptions in the last 12,000 years 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341120

 

Tacaná

Eruption in 0070 (margin of error  ± 100 years) out of 13 eruptions in the last 8,000 years. 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341130

 

San Martín

Eruption in 0150 BCE (margin of error ± 300 years) out of 16 eruptions in the last 5,500 years 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341110

 

The other volcanoes in Guatemala and Mexico are simply too far from the center of Sorenson's map, it is a small area. 

Edited August 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[USU78]

I do admit that if we're looking for naturalistic explanations for events in the Book of Mormon, a volcanic eruption (or eruptions) would definitely explain the earthquakes and subsequent "darkness" if an ash cloud covered the land.

 

Why employ "naturalistic" here?  Seeking understanding of how G-d does things is kind of a Mormon thing. It's hardly limited to those who've given any kind of thought to the Mezoamerican Model for the Lehites' homelands.  The term comes with a lot of baggage.

 

You know about the baggage and that is why you used the term, n'est-ce pas?

[ERayR]

Okay, can you predict when some volcanoes erupted without looking at the data? When was the last time Popocatépetl erupted? Don't Google it please. The Mesoamerican model predicted that Volcanoes erupted near Book of Mormon cities around 30 Ad. 

 

See the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program, See Eruptive History 

 

The three volcanoes that fit Sorenson's did erupt around 30 AD (3 Nephi) 

 

El Chichón

Eruption in 0020 BCE (margin of error ± 50 years) out of 11 eruptions in the last 12,000 years 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341120

 

Tacaná

Eruption in 0070 (margin of error  ± 100 years) out of 13 eruptions in the last 8,000 years. 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341130

 

San Martín

Eruption in 0150 BCE (margin of error ± 300 years) out of 16 eruptions in the last 5,500 years 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341110

 

And that was long before Sorenson wrote his books.  He never predicted those eruptions.  That one while fitting wel is one of your paint the target after the arrow is shot.

[SmileyMcGee]

Not so. Free Thinker has clearly stated that this makes the Mesoamerican theory "plausible" and explicitly stated that a sunken city does not "prove" the theory. I completely agree.

My point is that these findings cannot be considered evidence of the Book of Mormon until they are examined and tied to it. Predictive power, not plausibility, is what the OP was arguing for and it has not been established...though neither has plausibility, unless you have a very liberal idea of plausibility.

[SmileyMcGee]

Why would Mayan script need to resemble Egyptian or Hebrew script? Mayans are not necessarily Nephites/Lamenites but Nephites/Lamenites would have been part of the Mayan culture.

Perhaps that was an error on my part. My point was that none of those findings are evidence for the mesoamerican model unless they can be tied to the BOM. Predictability has therefore not been established.

[cinepro]

 

Why employ "naturalistic" here?  Seeking understanding of how G-d does things is kind of a Mormon thing. It's hardly limited to those who've given any kind of thought to the Mezoamerican Model for the Lehites' homelands.  The term comes with a lot of baggage.

 

You know about the baggage and that is why you used the term, n'est-ce pas?

 

Once you accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon, semantic issues regarding extra-textual volcanoes are pretty minor.

 

But that being said, the reason "naturalistic" is important is because if you don't require a naturalistic explanation, then the "volcano" theory isn't any better than any other theory that Heartlanders could come up with such as God removing all the evidence afterward to make faith a requirement (even adding that God had those volcanoes erupt only to throw off the faithless LGTers.)

Edited August 8, 2014 by cinepro

[ERayR]

My point is that these findings cannot be considered evidence of the Book of Mormon until they are examined and tied to it. Predictive power, not plausibility, is what the OP was arguing for and it has not been established...though neither has plausibility, unless you have a very liberal idea of plausibility.

 

Sorenson does a pretty good job of that.

[SmileyMcGee]

Sorenson does a pretty good job of that.

Oh does he? Why don't you show us Sorensen has persuasively tied the sunken city or the Mayan script to any group in the BOM.

[ERayR]

Oh does he? Why don't you show us Sorensen has persuasively tied the sunken city or the Mayan script to any group in the BOM.

 

Why don't you read it for yourself.  I am not trying to prove anything.

 

Bye

[SmileyMcGee]

Why don't you read it for yourself. I am not trying to prove anything.

Bye

Why are you getting so defensive? Just give a reference to back up your claim.

[ERayR]

Why are you getting so defensive? Just give a reference to back up your claim.

 

Probably the way you worded the your post.  I don't have time right now to summarize "Mormons Codex".

[MormonFreeThinker]

And that was long before Sorenson wrote his books.  He never predicted those eruptions.  That one while fitting wel is one of your paint the target after the arrow is shot.

 

Sorenson, in his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, spends a good portion of his discussion of “The Great Catastrophe” (pages 318-323) focusing on volcanism in the Valley of Mexico near modern Mexico City. 

 

See 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Three_days_of_darkness

 

These data did not exist before he wrote his book. 

 

El Chichón

Eruption in 0020 BCE (margin of error ± 50 years) out of 11 eruptions in the last 12,000 years 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341120

 

Tacaná

Eruption in 0070 (margin of error  ± 100 years) out of 13 eruptions in the last 8,000 years. 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341130

 

San Martín

Eruption in 0150 BCE (margin of error ± 300 years) out of 16 eruptions in the last 5,500 years 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341110

 

The other volcanoes in Guatemala and Mexico are simply too far from the center of Sorenson's map, it is a small area.

There are many scholars that predicted Volcanic eruptions in that small area, for example 

 

Russell H. Ball,"An Hypothesis concerning the Three Days of Darkness among the Nephites", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 2/1 (1993). 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=8

Edited August 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

Does the Mayan script from 250 BCE have any resemblance to Egyptian or Hebrew script? Does it reference anything that could be connected to the BOM? Has the flooded city been explored and have artifacts been found that tie back to the BOM? The purpose of the mesoamerican model is to predict the location of sites described in the BOM. If the "evidence" can't be tied back to the BOM then there is no predictive power.

 

Sorenson predicted an underwater pre-classic city, and a sudden rise of water about 2,000 years ago. There is now evidence for that, so that turned out to be true. The rest is just plausible. 

We do not have a detailed history of the cities predicted by scholars to be Book of Mormon cities, so scholars cannot confirm their predictions, at least not yet.  

 

You don't have to prove models or theories to prove predictions. For example in cosmology, inflation theory has not been proven (at least not before 2014), but inflation theory has made predictions that have been confirmed, see a 2011 scientific american article 

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-inflation-summer/

"inflationary theory is powerfully predictive. For example, numerous observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distribution of galaxies have confirmed that the spatial variations in energy in the early universe were nearly scale-invariant" 

 

But that didn't prove the Inflation Theory. 

Edited August 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

Here is an interesting paper by Adriana Linares Palma from the University of Guatemala. 

 

"El sitio fue nombrado por Roberto Samayoa, su descubridor, que en sus frecuentes buceos porel lago localizó restos de edificaciones prehispánicas en la isla sumergida. Samabaj mide cerca de 400m x 300 m y se ubica a unos 500 m de la playa; actualmente, y por lo menos desde hace 2000 años, está sumergido." 

http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/25._Linares_y_Medrano.pdf

 

and a article by Joshua Berman Author, 'Maya 2012: A Guide to Celebrations in Mexico, Guatemala, Belize & Honduras'

"Mayan Blue also reveals the remarkable archaeological site of Samabaj, a pre-classic site that was flooded in a cataclysmic event on Lake Atitlan some 2000 years ago." 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-berman/5-questions-about-travel-_b_2047353.html

Edited August 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[teddyaware]

I request that your comment gets deleted for being rude. 

 

 

 

That is very nice, but that is shooting an arrow before drawing the target, the event was known before the Book of Mormom was published. Can you prove that an earthquake like that happened in the 3rd Nephi  time period, and to your apostate Nephite cities?  I proved that volcanic eruptions happened in 3rd Nephi time period, and in Sorenson's geography.  Can you make a prediction?

Perhaps I'm wrong in the following assumption (if I am I sincerely apologize) but I'm wondering if Tiki's opposing voice has been banned from this thread because you have allowed yourself to be offended too easily. Tiki's comment was mild compared to many other scathing comments I've seen on this board where no disciplinary action was taken. I have an open mind on the Mesoamerican vs. Heartland debate, so I would have enjoyed and appreciated the continued back and forth. But now all I see is you with a free hand to basically say whatever it is you want to say without any real challenge, and in this the very purpose of a board dedicated to dialogue and discussion is defeated.

Again, if I assume incorrectly I apologize. But if Tiki has been banned from this thread by request, my hope in that in the future the debate will be allowed to continue unhindered.

[MormonFreeThinker]

have allowed yourself to be offended too easily. 

 

No, I don't get offended easily, I was just saying, I am not a less active member.

 

But now all I see is you with a free hand to basically say whatever it is you want to say without any real challenge, and in this the very purpose of a board dedicated to dialogue and discussion is defeated. from this thread by request, my hope in that in the future the debate will be allowed to continue unhindered.

 

Anyone else can come to challenge my points, and answer my questions. 

Edited August 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bikeemikey]

Perhaps I'm wrong in the following assumption (if I am I sincerely apologize) but I'm wondering if Tiki's opposing voice has been banned from this thread because you have allowed yourself to be offended too easily. Tiki's comment was mild compared to many other scathing comments I've seen on this board where no disciplinary action was taken. I have an open mind on the Mesoamerican vs. Heartland debate, so I would have enjoyed and appreciated the continued back and forth. But now all I see is you with a free hand to basically say whatever it is you want to say without any real challenge, and in this the very purpose of a board dedicated to dialogue and discussion is defeated.

Again, if I assume incorrectly I apologize. But if Tiki has been banned from this thread by request, my hope in that in the future the debate will be allowed to continue unhindered.

Tiki was being obnoxious - simple as that.

The interests of Dialogue and discussion do not trump the necessity of civility.

Others being more obnoxious in other threads (with out censure) is not a reason to tolerate the obnoxious in every thread.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[SmileyMcGee]

Sorenson predicted an underwater pre-classic city, and a sudden rise of water about 2,000 years ago. There is now evidence for that, so that turned out to be true. The rest is just plausible.

We do not have a detailed history of the cities predicted by scholars to be Book of Mormon cities, so scholars cannot confirm their predictions, at least not yet.

You don't have to prove models or theories to prove predictions. For example in cosmology, inflation theory has not been proven (at least not before 2014), but inflation theory has made predictions that have been confirmed, see a 2011 scientific american article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-inflation-summer/

"inflationary theory is powerfully predictive. For example, numerous observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distribution of galaxies have confirmed that the spatial variations in energy in the early universe were nearly scale-invariant"

But that didn't prove the Inflation Theory.

As I said before, the purpose of the mesoamerican model is to describe locations of BOM cities and events. Say, for the sake of illustration, that the underwater city is examined and found to have been sunken at around 600 CE and nothing found in an extensive search can be tied bak to the BOM. In this case, the model has no predictive power, because it did not any related to the BOM. The sunken city could be examined and evidenced found that strongly supports certain aspects of the BOM but until that occurs you cannot claim predictive power. How can you if the predictions have not yet been realized?

[MormonFreeThinker]

 for the sake of illustration, that the underwater city is examined and found to have been sunken at around 600 CE and nothing found in an extensive search can be tied bak to the BOM. 

 

If it is shown that it has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, then his predictions will lose their value, but that hasn't happened. If it is shown that it is a Book of Mormon city, his predictions will become a billion dollars. The point is that his specific predictions received some value when they got confirmed. 

 

The city was submerged around 30 AD (but like a 300 year margin of error), but not around 600 CE. 

It is going to be very hard for scholars to prove if it is a Book of Mormon city if a detailed history is not available.  Unfortunately, a detailed history is not available in both. 

 

The sunken city could be examined and evidenced found that strongly supports certain aspects of the BOM but until that occurs you cannot claim predictive power. 

 

Like I said because, you don't have to prove a theory for it's predictions to have value. Like I said, in cosmology inflation theory has not been proven (at least not before 2014), but inflation theory has predictions that have been confirmed before 2014. So are you saying that the predictions of inflation theory have (or had) no value? There are other theories and models in Cosmology and astrophysics that have not been proven, but that doesn't mean they have no value. 

 

The point is that Sorenson made many specific predictions that have been confirmed

1. Underwater city in a Lake atitlan

2. Sudden rise of water

3. submerged around 30 AD (but like a 300 year margin of error)  

 

Can you do something like that? 

Edited August 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[rodheadlee]

I hear tell some one war gamed the Nephite - Lamanite  wars and Sorenson's maps worked perfect. Anyone know more about that?

[SmileyMcGee]

If it is shown that it has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, then his predictions will lose their value, but that hasn't happened. If it is shown that it is a Book of Mormon city, his predictions will become a billion dollars. The point is that his specific predictions received some value when they got confirmed.

The city was submerged around 30 AD (but like a 300 year margin of error), but not around 600 CE.

It is going to be very hard for scholars to prove if it is a Book of Mormon city if a detailed history is not available. Unfortunately, a detailed history is not available in both.

Like I said because, you don't have to prove a theory for it's predictions to have value. Like I said, in cosmology inflation theory has not been proven (at least not before 2014), but inflation theory has predictions that have been confirmed before 2014. So are you saying that the predictions of inflation theory have (or had) no value? There are other theories and models in Cosmology and astrophysics that have not been proven, but that doesn't mean they have no value.

The point is that Sorenson made many specific predictions that have been confirmed

1. Underwater city in a Lake atitlan

2. Sudden rise of water

3. submerged around 30 AD (but like a 300 year margin of error)

Can you do something like that?

You are mistaken. The whole purpose of the model is to describe BOM geography. If the findings are tied to something that does not fit within the BOM then the model has not predicted anything. If it isn't possible to tie the findings to the BOM then there is no predictive power because the model is untestable. The model must be testable to have predictive power. If you can't say the model has predicted locations within the BOM then it has no predictive power. Until the evidence can be tested you can only speculate. Speculation is not prediction.

[ERayR]

You are mistaken. The whole purpose of the model is to describe BOM geography. If the findings are tied to something that does not fit within the BOM then the model has not predicted anything. If it isn't possible to tie the findings to the BOM then there is no predictive power because the model is untestable. The model must be testable to have predictive power. If you can't say the model has predicted locations within the BOM then it has no predictive power. Until the evidence can be tested you can only speculate. Speculation is not prediction.

 

Just what do you think the Book of Mormon is?