Mesoamerican Theory Predictions

[SmileyMcGee]

Just what do you think the Book of Mormon is?

Scripture.

[ERayR]

Scripture.

 

Now what would you expect from any given archeological site that would tie it to the Book of Mormon?

[MormonFreeThinker]

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.

 

I agree that it is not testable for now, but his predictions are testable, and are now confirmed. You keep ignoring that Inflation theory was not proven before 2014, and many other important theories in cosmology and astrophysics have not been proven, but it doesn't mean that the predictions have no value. Why do you ignore that? so you don't think that theoretical physics is important until it is proven?  

 

That underwater city may have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, we do not know, but that point is that his predictions are true whether we like it or not. Can you predict something like that? 

 

 

If the findings are tied to something that does not fit within the BOM then the model has not predicted anything. 

 

Please re-read what I previously wrote, I said that if it is shown that the city has nothing to do with the book of Mormon, the predictions will lose their value. If it is shown that it is a Book of Mormon city, the predictions will become a billion dollars. For now, they have value because we now know that the three specific predictions are true. 

 

The point is that the predictions make the theory plausible. That is my point. 

Edited August 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

You are mistaken.

 

Let me give you another example, Abiogenesis.  A natural Abiognesis predicts that amino acids can form naturally, the Miller–Urey experiment confirmed that prediction. The theory of a Natural Abiognesis has not been proven, does that mean it's confirmed predictions have no value? Answer that please. 

[ERayR]

Let me give you another example, Abiogenesis.  A natural Abiognesis predicts that amino acids can form naturally, the Miller–Urey experiment confirmed that prediction. The theory of a Natural Abiognesis has not been proven, does that mean it's confirmed predictions have no value? Answer that please. 

 

That experiment only proved it could happen under tightly controlled conditions not that it happened under wide open uncontrolled conditions.

[bcuzbcuz]

I agree that it is not testable for now, but his predictions are testable, and are now confirmed. You keep ignoring that Inflation theory was not proven before 2014, and many other important theories in cosmology and astrophysics have not been proven, but it doesn't mean that the predictions have no value. Why do you ignore that? so you don't think that theoretical physics is important until it is proven?  

 

That underwater city may have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, we do not know, but that point is that his predictions are true whether we like it or not. Can you predict something like that? 

 

Edison invented the light bulb. To date I have invented......zilch.

Nostradamus predicted the destruction of the Twin Towers. To date I have predicted......zilch.

Upon the birth of my first daughter I was at a loss for words because I´d only come up with boys names. My score on foresight and planning is equally dismal. All of which is completely immaterial. The question is whether Sorenson´s prediction is of any significance.

He predicted volcanoes. Volcanoes have been found. He predicted a lake. The lake has been found. He predicted a sunken city. A sunken city has been found. He used the Book of Mormon to predict these things, giving it a certain time frame. This time frame seems to coincide with the sinking of the city. The city may not even have anything to do with the Nephites or Lamanites.. Still, Sorenson comes out on top.

The direct quote from Sorenson´s Mormon Codex states: "An expert has suggested that a volcanic event beneath the lakebed forced it, and thus the water above it, to rise suddenly, engulfing buildings formerly situated near the shoreline. The buildings appear to have been undamaged before their submersion, implying a sudden rise of the water."

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/underwater-archaeology-and-the-book-of-mormon-in-sorensons-mormons-codex/#_ednref2

First of all, Who is this un-named "expert"? And wouldn´t a volcanic event cause tremours and after tremours that would cause building damage? And if the buildings appear to be undamaged,, does that imply a "sudden rise of water" or does it imply a slow, gradual submergence??

If the submergence took a long time, does that then link it to a BofM event or entirely un-link it?

[rameumptom]

The problem with the New Madrid fault is it is in the corner where Missouri/Illinois/Indiana meet.  This is no where near the Great Lakes or Palmyra areas.  Last big shock wave was a few years ago. It caused some mild swaying in Indianapolis, but nothing like the BoM scenario.  I just do not see it as a plausible possibility due to its distance from the proposed Nephite areas.

[bcuzbcuz]

The problem with the New Madrid fault is it is in the corner where Missouri/Illinois/Indiana meet.  This is no where near the Great Lakes or Palmyra areas.  Last big shock wave was a few years ago. It caused some mild swaying in Indianapolis, but nothing like the BoM scenario.  I just do not see it as a plausible possibility due to its distance from the proposed Nephite areas.

I´ve been in several earthquakes, one in Salt Lake where bookshelves toppled and walls wobbled. I´ve been around active volcanoes in Chile and Mt. Etna and Stromboli in Italy, during eruptions. The earth shakes and rocks fly through the air. None of these are earth burps that leaves everything the way it was. Maybe volcanoes in Central America are gentler.

[ksfisher]

The direct quote from Sorenson´s Mormon Codex states: "An expert has suggested that a volcanic event beneath the lakebed forced it, and thus the water above it, to rise suddenly, engulfing buildings formerly situated near the shoreline. The buildings appear to have been undamaged before their submersion, implying a sudden rise of the water."

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/underwater-archaeology-and-the-book-of-mormon-in-sorensons-mormons-codex/#_ednref2

First of all, Who is this un-named "expert"?

 

Sorenson's source for this, which is footnoted in the actual book, but not the preview that you linked to, is a book by Richardson Gill titled "Great Maya Droughts." 

 

Gill has a PhD in archeology from the University of Texas at Austin.

Edited August 11, 2014 by ksfisher

[MormonFreeThinker]

Nostradamus predicted the destruction of the Twin Towers. To date I have predicted......zilch.

 

No he didn't, his predictions can apply to anything, they are ambiguous, and he made hundreds of predictions, but only a small number are use by his followers. That is shooting an arrow before drawing the target.  Sorenson's predictions are specific. 

 

 

First of all, Who is this un-named "expert"? And wouldn´t a volcanic event cause tremours and after tremours that would cause building damage? And if the buildings appear to be undamaged,, does that imply a "sudden rise of water" or does it imply a slow, gradual submergence??

 

You can read what I quoted in a previous post, I quoted non-mormon sources. 

 

"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

 

"One theory believes that a volcano emerged inside the lake, causing the natural drainage system to clog, leading to a rapid elevation of the water level. The second theory establishes that it was a strong climatic event that caused the city floods.

http://www.guatemalatoday.net/mayans-2012/2012-guatemala-promote-maya-city-bottom-lake-atitlan/

 

Book Arqueología subacuática: Amatitlán, Atitlán

"Para poder cubrir el sitio por completo, el nivel debió aumentar por lo menos 15 metros. Pero es necesario dar alguna explicación sobre las causas de este evento"

http://books.google.com/books/about/Arqueolog%C3%ADa_subacu%C3%A1tica.html?id=5aPOnoSFObgC

 

"por alguna razón el nivel del lago ascendió más de 30 metros de forma anormal hace 2 mil años" 

http://arquehistoria.com/historiassamabaj-ciudad-sumergida-en-el-lago-de-atitl-n-503

 

 

 

If the submergence took a long time, does that then link it to a BofM event or entirely un-link it?

 

If the submergence took a long time, it could still be a Book of Mormon city, but there would be no reason to think it is a Book of Mormon city. That would also be a mistake in Sorenson's model. However, the evidence points to a sudden rise about 2,000 years ago. The city was submerged in about 1 AD to 300 AD.  

Edited August 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[cinepro]

If the submergence took a long time, it could still be a Book of Mormon city, but there would be no reason to think it is a Book of Mormon city. That would also be a mistake in Sorenson's model. However, the evidence points to a sudden rise about 2,000 years ago. The city was submerged in about 1 AD to 300 AD.  

 

No, that would not be a "mistake in Sorenson's model", because his model does not say that there shouldn't be such cities.  You talk a lot about arrows and targets, but I think you're not entirely clear on exactly how the entire theory/prediction/data thing works.

[MormonFreeThinker]

No, that would not be a "mistake in Sorenson's model", because his model does not say that there shouldn't be such cities.  

 

In his 1985 book, Sorenson said that the Book of Mormon city of Jerusalem most plausibly fits into Mesoamerican geography if it is considered to have been located on the south shore of Lake Atitlan. The book of mormon city of Jerusalem was drowned in 3 Nephi. How is that drawing the target after shooting the arrow?

 

"if it was already known that there were volcanoes in the area, then predicting ancient volcanic activity isn't very impressive"

 

Book of Mormon scholars predicted volcanic eruptions during the natural disaster event of 3 Nephi, that data confirms the prediction. So you think it is easy to guess exactly when a volcanic eruption happened? When was the last time Yellowstone erupted? 

 

These data did not exist before the Mesoamerican model was created. Here are the three volcanoes that could cover most of the Book of Mormon lands in the Mesoamerican model. 

 

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

Edited August 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

 

In his 1985 book, Sorenson said that the Book of Mormon city of Jerusalem most plausibly fits into Mesoamerican geography if it is considered to have been located on the south shore of Lake Atitlan. The book of mormon city of Jerusalem was drowned in 3 Nephi. How is that drawing the target after shooting the arrow?

 

"if it was already known that there were volcanoes in the area, then predicting ancient volcanic activity isn't very impressive"

 

Book of Mormon scholars predicted volcanic eruptions during the natural disaster event of 3 Nephi, that data confirms the prediction. So you think it is easy to guess exactly when a volcanic eruption happened? When was the last time Yellowstone erupted? 

 

These data did not exist before the Mesoamerican model was created. Here are the three volcanoes that could cover most of the Book of Mormon lands in the Mesoamerican model. 

 

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

 

It just doesn't matter if Sorenson is 100% right or 100% wrong.  It will not change the validity of the Book of Mormon.

Edited August 11, 2014 by ERayR

[MormonFreeThinker]

It just doesn't matter if Sorenson is 100% right or 100% wrong.  It will not change the validity of the Book of Mormon.

 

True, but in my opinion other geographies are not plausible, and they contradict what the books tells us about ancient America.  

[ERayR]

True, but in my opinion other geographies are not plausible, and they contradict what the books tells us about ancient America.  

 

What difference does it make?  What books? 

[MormonFreeThinker]

What difference does it make?  What books? 

 

We LDS should embrace science, including the scientific dating methods. Other Book of Mormon geographies ignore the scientific dating methods. We LDS should embrace the facts. 

Edited August 12, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

We LDS should embrace science, including the scientific dating methods. Other Book of Mormon geographies ignore the scientific dating methods. We LDS should embrace the facts. 

 

Only if it is of interest to you and even then one should be extremely careful.  Science is so fickle.  No sooner do you embrace its saving principles then someone comes along with a whole new set of saving principles and the old ones are out the window.

 

Don't go accusing me of being anti-science.  I embrace science.  I own two computers, a cell phone, a couple of televisions and a fax machine.  I drive a car with a lot of electronics, use modern appliances and have indoor plumbing.  What I don't do is rely on science for my religious confirmation.  I don't rely on science to validate my belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I don't rely on science to validate the atonement.  I don't use science to validate my scriptures.  For that I use personal revelation, it works much better.  

[MormonFreeThinker]

What I don't do is rely on science for my religious confirmation.  I don't rely on science to validate my belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I don't rely on science to validate the atonement.  I don't use science to validate my scriptures.  For that I use personal revelation, it works much better.  

 

I agree, but the church does not have an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon, Evolution, Death before the Fall, and many other topics. I am not in a sacrament meeting, and the problem is that many fellow LDS ignore important scientific evidence.

 

Remember what Elder Oaks said, "Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge and techniques" 

 

There are many dating methods that can estimate the age of something, and if they all point to the same time period, that means that it is true. Carbon dating alone is reliable.  

 

Like I said, other geographies ignore facts that students learn in school.  For example, that there were no ancient writing systems outside ancient mesoamerica.  

 

They ignore the dating methods, for example, current radiocarbon dates place the time of Monks Mound construction between A.D. 900 and 1150. 

http://cahokiamounds.org/explore/history-exc-monks.pdf

They ignore that the ruins of Peru don't date to Book of Mormon times.  

 

Great Lakes proponents use questionable artifacts as evidence for the Book of Mormon. 

Let me give you more examples, 

 

 

There's a submerged village in a lake in Derbyshire. There's one in Northumberland too.

There are also old coins, evidence of horses, writing, metallurgy, settlements, battlefields etc here.

Should we now be looking at a British Isles location for the Book of Mormon? 

 

That village was submerged in a man made lake, and it has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/eastmidlands/series4/east_midlands_reservoirs.shtml

 

What coins? 

No horse bones have been confirmed that date the Book of Mormon times, that is why Mormon scholars are open to the tapir interpretation. 

Battles happened everywhere, how is that evidence? 

Edited August 12, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

Don't go accusing me of being anti-science.  

 

I am not accusing you of anti-science. 

Edited August 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

 

I agree, but the church does not have an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon, Evolution, Death before the Fall, and many other topics. I am not in a sacrament meeting, and the problem is that many fellow LDS ignore important scientific evidence.

 

Scientific evidence does not prove the Church and gospel or the atonement to be true so why do you question ones intelligence because of their interpretation of or disinterest in scientific data.

 

Remember what Elder Oaks said, "Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge and techniques" 

 

Again Scientific evidence does not prove the Church and gospel or the atonement to be true.

 

There are many dating methods that can estimate the age of something, and if they all point to the same time period, that means that it is true. Carbon dating alone is reliable.  

 

The only thing it proves is its age.  It says nothing about whether it is true. 

 

Like I said, other geographies ignore facts that students learn in school.  For example, that there were no ancient writing systems outside ancient mesoamerica.

 

Geography doesn't prove the Book of Mormon true or false.  It is interesting but proves nothing.  CFR on the lack of writing systems outside of mesoamerica.

 

They ignore the dating methods, for example, current radiocarbon dates place the time of Monks Mound construction between A.D. 900 and 1150. 

http://cahokiamounds.org/explore/history-exc-monks.pdf

They ignore that the ruins of Peru don't date to Book of Mormon times.  

 

Who is they?  What does that have to do with the truth claims for the Book of Mormon?

 

Great Lakes proponents use questionable artifacts as evidence for the Book of Mormon. 

Let me give you more examples, 

 

What does that have to do with the truth claims for the Book of Mormon?

 

That village was submerged in a man made lake, and it has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/eastmidlands/series4/east_midlands_reservoirs.shtml

 

What coins? 

No horse bones have been confirmed that date the Book of Mormon times, that is why Mormon scholars are open to the tapir interpretation. 

Battles happened everywhere, how is that evidence? 

 

He knows that he is just jerking your chain to get one of your knee jerk reactions.  Worked didn't it?

[ERayR]

I am not accusing you of anti-science. 

 

You have in the evolution threads.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Scientific evidence does not prove the Church and gospel or the atonement to be true so why do you question ones intelligence because of their interpretation of or disinterest in scientific data.

I agree, you need revelation for that, not science, I am not using science to prove the Book of Mormon.  I am only saying that the Mesoamerican geography is the only geography that does not contradict that facts.

 

 

 

The only thing it proves is its age.  It says nothing about whether it is true. 

 

 

If it does not date to Book of Mormon times, how is it plausible? I am not talking about proof, I am talking about reasonable possibilities. 

 

 

Geography doesn't prove the Book of Mormon true or false.  It is interesting but proves nothing.  CFR on the lack of writing systems outside of mesoamerica.

 

I agree, all I am saying is that we shouldn't ignore the facts. For example, we shouldn't say that Hebrew has been found in the Bat Creek Stone.  

 

"In fact, Mesoamerica is the only place in the Americas where indigenous writing systems were invented and used before European colonization"

http://www.ancientscripts.com/ma_ws.html

Edited August 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

I am not using science to prove the Book of Mormon.  I am only saying that the Mesoamerican geography is the only geography that does not contradict that facts.

 

By implication you are.  note your wording.  And for the record that is not a true statement.  It is only your interpretation of the data.  I happen to think mesoamerica is correct but the data is not incontavertable.  I am only saying that the Mesoamerican geography is the only geography that does not contradict that facts.  (bold Mine)

 

 

If it does not date to Book of Mormon times, how is it plausible? I am not talking about proof, I am talking about reasonable possibilities. 

 

You certainly seem to be talking proof.  If you are only talking reasonable possibilities say so.

 

I agree, all I am saying is that we shouldn't ignore the facts. For example, we shouldn't say that Hebrew has been found in the Bat Creek Stone.  

 

Nobody is ignoring facts by disagreeing with your interpretation of the data.

 

"In fact, Mesoamerica is the only place in the Americas where indigenous writing systems were invented and used before European colonization"

http://www.ancientscripts.com/ma_ws.html

 

Note that while it is not a conventional writing system it is a writing system and it is quite effective once learned.

 

http://archaeology.about.com/od/americanancientwriting/a/quipu.htm

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

You certainly seem to be talking proof.  If you are only talking reasonable possibilities say so.

 

 

 

I keep saying that the Mesoamerican model is the only reasonable possibility because it doesn't contradict the facts. 

I am not saying that the Mesoamerican model is proven, I am saying that the model doesn't contradict what already has been proven about ancient america.   

Edited August 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

I keep saying that the Mesoamerican model is the only reasonable possibility because it doesn't contradict the facts. 

I am not saying that the Mesoamerican model is proven, I am saying that the model doesn't contradict what already has been proven about ancient america.   

 

Now lets look at your claim that it is the only reasonable possibility.  As long it is not proven there is room for reasonable people to disagree.  You seem to think that if one doesn't see things as you do they are not reasonable.  That is an elitist attitude and I can assure you it is not true.  You can be (and dare I say it) are as unreasonable as the rest of us.