Scientific proof for Ether 15:2

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

but Teotihuacan was the largest city around 1,200 AD, about 1,000 years after Book of Mormon events, and almost 2,000 years after the Jaradites. 

Actually Teotihuacan was first occupied in around 500 BC (during the Olmec/Jaredite period), but was only laid out as a planned city several centuries later, with its center on the great Pyramid of the Sun.  It held great influence on all of Mesoamerica from about 150 BC to 700 AD.  At its apogee in the 4th century AD, its population was from around 150,000 to 250,000, and was larger than ancient Rome.  Karl Taube believes that they had a complete hieroglyphic writing system.  Teotihuacan was largely abandoned in 700 AD, and burned in 750 AD.  The collapse of Monte Alban in Oaxaca occurred at about the same time or soon thereafter.

I thought the Jaradites were a very small group compared to the Olmecs, and CFR that Mesocamerica had at least 10 million in 400 to 350 BC, and please explain how scholars know about ancient Mesoamerican populations, but not about huge wars that killed millions? 

Very little is known about the Jaredites, but there is  no reason to assume that they were smaller than the Olmec.  In fact they may be the Olmecs, since there is no other New World culture which they could be.  The existence of great wars or battles are very difficult for archeologists to establish.  What they do instead is to examine ancient settlement patterns of both urban and rural areas, and then to calculate the population density of particular areas at given periods.

The Sawi-Zaa (Zapotecs), for example, established Monte Alban (MA) in the center of Oaxaca in about 500 BC, with about 2,000 population.  By 300 BC MA had grown to 5,000 population, and perhaps 15,000 by 200 BC.  Taking into account also the rural area, the population for the region was 10,000 - 20,000 in 300 BC, and 40,000 in 200 BC.  Oaxaca featured a powerful hydraulic-irrigation culture by 200 BC, and reservoirs and irrigation canals were located behind the MA wall.  MA had been an open city until that time, but at around 200-300 AD, some new threat posed itself, but was not able to conquer MA.  Smithsonian, 10/11 (Feb 1980):62-70.

Just based on traditional milpa (slash & burn) agriculture in Mesoamerica, anthropologists estimate a population density of about 77 persons per square kilometer.  Yet, based on hydraulic irrigation agriculture, scholars believe that population in the densest Maya areas could have been as high as 300 per square kilometer (777 per square mile), and certainly at least 150/km².   So Gordon R. Willey, "Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture: A Contemporary Summation," in P. D. Harrison & B. C. Turner II, eds., Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture (Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico, 1978), 325-326; cf. Willey, "Maya Lowland Settlement Patterns: A Summary Review" (in W. Ashmore, ed., Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns [Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico, 1981]; reprinted in Willey, Essays in Maya Archaeology [Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1987], 107-136) and in his 1979 Huxley Memorial Lecture "Toward an Holistic View of Ancient Maya Civilization" (Man, 15:249-266; reprinted in Willey, Essays in Maya Archaeology, 143-147).

Thus, if the entire Jaredite population lived on 140,000 sq miles of territory, we could reasonably account for around 4-6 million people living in that territory.  Note that 2 million of Coriantumr's men are slain (Eth 15:2), and that he spends 4 years gathering more (15:14), making 4-6 million a rather conservative estimate.

 

[USU78]

On 5/22/2016 at 11:16 AM, morgan.deane said:

I don't know what you define as a "small region" or "good evidence." (I suspect the ladder is whatever you say it is.)   But Hannibal's army killed hundreds of thousands at the battles of Cannae, Lake Trasmine, and Trebia (around 80,000 just at Cannae.) Italy is fairly small. I've already discussed several conflicts of very short duration in a limited area. The area around the Yellow River is fairly small, but featured wars that killed hundreds of thousands, and one battle reportedly had 700,000 deaths. Several writers pointed out others examples such as the Zulu wars, Jewish rebellion, and the Cortez conquest.  I specialize in military history and could provide another dozen examples.  Honestly I don't see the merit in this criticism. Big armies and large numbers of casualties was extremely common in warfare, as well as misreporting numbers either deliberately or due to error.  (See my original post for more.)  I'm short on time but if you want to explain your position more I would love to hear it.  Thanks and have a great day. 

Can't help thinking about the Cumbri and their allies (including the Teutons) that the Romans defeated so decisively ~102-101 BCE:  300-500,000 Germans wiped out by a force of  40-60,000 Romans under Gaius Marius, Caesar's uncle.

Do we doubt the numbers?  Why?

[TheSkepticChristian]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Very little is known about the Jaredites,

Exactly, and because you are not a literalist and you don't believe in inerrancy that makes (for you) the Bible and the Book of Mormon not falsifiable. Can you make predictions by reading the Book of Mormon? If not, then how is it falsifiable? I know that John Welch predicted chiasmus, but is that it? 

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Note that 2 million of Coriantumr's men are slain (Eth 15:2), and that he spends 4 years gathering more (15:14), making 4-6 million a rather conservative estimate.

It is still hard for me to imagine that no evidence can't be found for a war of such magnitude. Scientists find fossils of ancient animals in Mesoamerca that have long been extinct, but no evidence for a massive war? Anyways, if no evidence can't be found because the Mesoamerican climate destroys it that means the Book of Mormon remains unfalsifiable 

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 there is no reason to assume that they were smaller than the Olmec. In fact they may be the Olmecs

I think your fellow scholars like Brant disagree with that. 

Edited May 24, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Exactly, and because you are not a literalist and you don't believe in inerrancy that makes (for you) the Bible and the Book of Mormon not falsifiable. Can you make predictions by reading the Book of Mormon? If not, then how is it falsifiable? I know that John Welch predicted chiasmus, but is that it?

Literalism and inerrancy have nothing to do with scientific falsifiability (as laid out by Karl Popper).  Any ancient document can be scientifically examined based on the internal claims which are made.  You either accept science or you don't, Skeptic.  So far it is not clear to me that you have any idea what scientific inquiry might be about or how it proceeds.  I gave you examples of scientific inquiry into the Book of Mormon.  Did you even bother to take them into consideration?

Smith, Robert F.  “New Information About Mulek, Son of the King,” FARMS Update, Feb 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 142-144. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 .  See also https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/has-a-book-of-mormon-artifact-been-found . 

Smith, Robert F., “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010):125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807 .

Smith, Robert F., “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

It is still hard for me to imagine that no evidence can't be found for a war of such magnitude. Scientists find fossils of ancient animals in Mesoamerca that have long been extinct, but no evidence for a massive war? Anyways, if no evidence can't be found because the Mesoamerican climate destroys it that means the Book of Mormon remains unfalsifiable 

Various claims in the Bible and Book of Mormon remain unfalsifiable because the very nature of the evidence does not allow it.  Miracles are a prime example.  Battles are another.  Even when we read historical documents about battles, the direct evidence is usually lacking.  This is not only due to the deterioration of bodies and skeletal remains over time, but also because war paraphernalia is usually gathered up by survivors and utilized by them.  However, there are many ways in which the consequences of large-scale warfare can be verified:  This is especially true when huge declines in population occur, and archeology discloses the decline through settlement pattern evidence. Of course the decline could be caused by disease and famine, so that associated examination of climate must be made.

I think your fellow scholars like Brant disagree with that. 

I recommend citing Brant by title and page number.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, USU78 said:

Can't help thinking about the Cumbri and their allies (including the Teutons) that the Romans defeated so decisively ~102-101 BCE:  300-500,000 Germans wiped out by a force of  40-60,000 Romans under Gaius Marius, Caesar's uncle.

Do we doubt the numbers?  Why?

We can also compare the huge forces of Persians defeated by much smaller Greek forces at Marathon and then at Thermopylae.  See especially https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Sfmn3hff4 .

[TheSkepticChristian]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Literalism and inerrancy have nothing to do with scientific falsifiability

If you don't believe in literalism and inerrancy, it means it is impossible to disprove the text. 

For example, if you don't take Genesis literal, then it can't be falsified. 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I gave you examples of scientific inquiry into the Book of Mormon. Did you even bother to take them into consideration?

In your article you say, ". Biblical scholarship now bears out this Book of Mormon claim: King Zedekiah had a son name Mulek"

1. It is interesting, but did you shoot the arrow before or after drawing the target? Does the Book of Mormon make predictions? it is easy to say "I has this right" but ignore all the misses. 

2. Peer-reviewed? 

 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

attles are another. Even when we read historical documents about battles, the direct evidence is usually lacking.

Perhaps because they are not as big? Do you know of an ancient war that killed more than one million? That scholars of fairly certain that it was more than one million, but without direct archaeological evidence?  

Quote

which tells us that there was in fact a precipitous decline in population of the Olmec at around 400-350 BC

CFR please. Isn't that about 200 years off? 

Edited May 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 5/21/2016 at 10:17 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 If we take the Olmec heartland in Tabasco and Veracruz, along with neighboring Oaxaca, and central Mexico, and associated areas, there was certainly a population in the millions

please CFR that there were many millions of Olmec around 600 BC. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

If you don't believe in literalism and inerrancy, it means it is impossible to disprove the text. 

For example, if you don't take Genesis literal, then it can't be falsified. 

I know of no scholar who shares this odd view.  Literalism and inerrancy have nothing to do with scientific inquiry and are irrelevant.  You need to carefully think these assertions through.  Any ancient text can make whatever claim it wants.  Scholarship examines those claims to see if they are in any way justified.  Do you really not understand that principle?  I gave you multiple examples in my articles.

In your article you say, ". Biblical scholarship now bears out this Book of Mormon claim: King Zedekiah had a son name Mulek"

1. It is interesting, but did you shoot the arrow before or after drawing the target? Does the Book of Mormon make predictions? it is easy to say "I has this right" but ignore all the misses. 

2. Peer-reviewed? 

Did you really read the article?  In it I make clear that Yohanan Aharoni had discovered inscriptions at Arad with the name Malkiyahu, which he immediately tied to the name of a son of Zedekiah known from Jeremiah.  Two other non-Mormon scholars responded positively to the suggestion that Mulek could have been that very son, and the short-form of the name made sense to them -- I knew both of them and sought their opinions on the matter, based on Aharoni's frank comments.  Such an observation does not exist in a vacuum, and would be valueless if it were the only such match with a BofM claim.  In my articles, I treat a broad array of scientific evidence.  Other scholars do likewise.  You seem to take the atomistic approach on the one hand, and then claim that others are doing likewise on the other.  I suggest that you look at scientific evidence as part of a communal effort to get at reality.

............................................... Do you know of an ancient war that killed more than one million? That scholars of fairly certain that it was more than one million, but without direct archaeological evidence?  

I gave you many, from the Mongol invasions to Shaka Zulu's conquests, and I see that you have changed the goal posts to a higher number to avoid Tacitus' claim of 600,000 dead in Jerusalem by 73 AD.  Instead of looking at scientific evidence, you are playing a numbers game.

CFR please,  Isn't that about 200 years off?

No, There is no reason to put the demise of the Jaredites at 600 BC.

https://www.boundless.com/world-history/textbooks/boundless-world-history-i-ancient-1600-textbook/pre-columbian-americas-11/early-civilizations-of-mexico-and-mesoamerica-51/the-olmec-191-13286/ .  As Coe, Snow, and Benson observe, "By the Late Formative [400 BC], Olmec culture had in effect disappeared" (Atlas of Ancient America [1986], 94).

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

Quote

5/21/2016 at 0:17 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

 If we take the Olmec heartland in Tabasco and Veracruz, along with neighboring Oaxaca, and central Mexico, and associated areas, there was certainly a population in the millions

Please CFR that there were many millions of Olmec around 600 BC. 

If I say "millions" you immediately say "many millions."  That is a bad habit, Skeptic, and it doesn't bode well for scientific inquiry.

I don't have a source which claims "millions" for Olmec society on the verge of their extinction in the 4th century BC, after years of warfare.

However, Olmec civilization began in earnest ca 1700 BC and flourished during the 2nd millennium BC.  The main population was not urban, but lived in areas surrounding the great ceremonial centers, and Olmec culture could be found in many neighboring areas:  Guerrero (where some believe that the Olmec originated), Morelos, etc.  Most of the people raised corn (two crops per year), but many were long-distance traders, and some raised yams, squash, beans, avocados, cacao, rubber, etc.  The Olmec heartland was particularly fertile, was carefully leveed, and is estimated to total about 7,000 square miles.  If we follow a low figure used by Gordon Willey, above, for the Maya (388/mi²), then this would mean around 2,716,000 people just in that heartland alone.  The area actually occupied by the Olmec was much greater than that, so the potential population is also that much greater.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I know of no scholar who shares this odd view. Literalism and inerrancy have nothing to do with scientific inquiry and are irrelevant....Scholarship examines those claims to see if they are in any way justified

I am not saying that, I am trying to say we can't examine books like Genesis. 

For example, Science proved that Earth is billions of years old, but most people believe the six day creation is not literal.  

You can never falsify something that is not literal, you can't measure that. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Such an observation does not exist in a vacuum, and would be valueless if it were the only such match with a BofM claim. In my articles, I treat a broad array of scientific evidence.

It is clear that you didn't understand what I said. Science makes predictions. Did LDS scholars expect to find evidence for Mulek yes or no? What about the Prophet Zenock? Do LDS scholars expect to find evidence that Zenock existed? Science makes expectations, what is how we can know when something is falsifiable. You shoot the arrow after drawing the target, not before, that is how science works. 

Brant Gardner doesn't expect to find the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, that is a very important reason why Book of Mormon is not falsifiable. Brant tries to find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon (parallelism, which is not useful), but not the other way around. So it is clear the Book of Mormon is not falsifiable. 

Quote

to a higher number to avoid Tacitus' claim of 600,000 dead in Jerusalem by 73 AD.

Tacitus claim means nothing, I think his numbers are highly unreliable, we expect the ancients to make exaggerations.  

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If I say "millions" you immediately say "many millions."  

because we need many millions in order to make sense of the (alleged) 2 million that died. Remember, most LDS I read say that the Olmecs are not the Jaradites, the Jaradites were a minority at most. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Brant Gardner]

21 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It is clear that you didn't understand what I said. Science makes predictions. Did LDS scholars expect to find evidence for Mulek yes or no? What about the Prophet Zenock? Do LDS scholars expect to find evidence that Zenock existed? Science makes expectations, what is how we can know when something is falsifiable. You shoot the arrow after drawing the target, not before, that is how science works. 

Are you conflating the hard sciences with the soft? Nothing you are saying here describes archaeology, anthropology, history, or ethnohistory. Those soft sciences collect and collate data and make deductions from the evidence. If they predict, they run the risk of finding what is predicted whether it ws there or not. There is a huge gap between an artifact and what the artifact might mean. If you are going to evoke the word science, you should apply the appropriate meaning for the type of science applicable to the issue.

Quote

Brant Gardner doesn't expect to find the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, that is a very important reason why Book of Mormon is not falsifiable. Brant tries to find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon (parallelism, which is not useful), but not the other way around. So it is clear the Book of Mormon is not falsifiable. 

I will assume that you haven't actually ready anything i have written if you suggest that my methodology is equivalent to parallelism. In particular, you must not have seen where I have explicitly indicated that it is not a reliable methodology for reconstructing history. Please feel free to criticize my work, but please criticize my work, not what you think I must have said.

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I will assume that you haven't actually ready anything i have written if you suggest that my methodology is equivalent to parallelism

So please tell us what you mean by finding Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon?  I have read some of your work, and I have listen to your presentations. 

4 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Nothing you are saying here describes archaeology, anthropology, history, or ethnohistory.

True, but I want to know if you agree with me that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not falsifiable? 

I no longer have respect for most LDS scholars (apologists), but you are one of the few that I still respect. . 

 

Edited May 26, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Brant Gardner]

17 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So please tell us what you mean by finding Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon? 

Historical documents are written in a time and context that is typically unstated and assumed in the document. They typically have no descriptions of unusual things--because for them they are not unusual. Finding Mesoamerican in the Book of Mormon simply means that we examine the text for the unwritten subtext that illuminates the events and actions in the text. That requires convergence of time and place as well as event or cultural content. Thus the hunt is for the historical context based on the clues in the text.

The opposite is that we make assumptions of what the Book of Mormon ought to be, or what it should have produced, and go looking for that. If it happened that we guessed right, perhaps we find something. However, when we look for what we expect, not finding it doesn't tell us that the text was wrong as much as it does that the expectation was wrong. It is simply not the way to deal with a historical text.

Quote

True, but I want to know if you agree with me that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not falsifiable? 

Starting with the Bible, we have more data that are uncontroversial and it is easier to answer the question. We could certainly falsify the text's historical information, but we not only don't need to--it has largely been corroborated. What remains uncorroborated are the miracles--or the religious interpretations and meanings. Those are not falsifiable because they are on a different informational plane. They answer to different issues.

For the Book of Mormon, we will always have the problem with the religious aspects that will be unfalisifiable for the same reason as those aspects of the Bible are. However, the historical aspects don't have the context of firm locations for archaeology to look, and the long literacy that provides corroborating data. We have to work harder. That makes the task more difficult, but not unfalisibiable. There are still events, descriptions, and geography.

In the case of geography, while there are some debatable features, there are enough descriptions that they are falsifiable. For example, I find that many geographies of the Book of Mormon spend time making (and it does appear that they are making) the major pieces fit, but they stop looking or working when it comes to a place like Manti. There are sufficient details about Manti that must fit the text, and most geographies simply drop Manti on the map based on one or two hints, but don't really look at the whole picture. Manti can be used to falsify many geographies.

As for history, that is even easier to falsify because we have to meet so many criteria--including time. Movements happen at particular times. People meet who should have the same language, but don't. Nephites and Jaredites overlap in time, but not geography while there are Jaredite populations. Any of these textual items can be used to falsify a correlation to the Book of Mormon (and most geographies fail at this one as well).

So my answer is that there are enough data points that a hypothesis could be falsified for the Book of Mormon. I try to go through every one that I hear about to see if they can pass the text's rigorous requirements. Most of them don't even hold up for the geography, let alone the historical and cultural data.

[mikegriffith1]

Some evidence of a large battle--bones and weapons--has been found around the leading candidate for the original Hill Cumorah: Cerro Vigia.

Cerro Vigia meets all the criteria laid out in the Book of Mormon for the original site of the final battles:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/lds/book-mormon-geography/

http://www.bmaf.org/articles/bom_criteria_hill_cumorah__norman

[Atheist Mormon]

On 5/20/2016 at 2:27 PM, ksfisher said:

There is also no evidence that such a battle did not take, or could not, take place.

Then it is incumbent on you to be skeptical instead of taking somebody's word for it. this is not only place that evidence is missing, most of the Biblical Archaeology is built on hogwash. Why do I take the side skeptic because the proponents of these hypotheses did not come up with the evidence that supports their claim.  

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 5/26/2016 at 4:51 PM, Brant Gardner said:

So my answer is that there are enough data points that a hypothesis could be falsified for the Book of Mormon.

Just one more question. Do you agree with Robert F Smith that the two million of Ether 15:2 is plausible and a good estimate? 

[Brant Gardner]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Just one more question. Do you agree with Robert F Smith that the two million of Ether 15:2 is plausible and a good estimate? 

I don't think that you should take large numbers seriously in ancient documents. They mean that there were a lot of people, but I doubt that the number given represented real populations.

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 5/22/2016 at 7:45 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no problem with such high numbers at all. The final death toll (with women & children) may have been closer to 6 million. We are talking here of certain orders of magnitude which you automatically reject

"I don't think that you should take large numbers seriously in ancient documents. They mean that there were a lot of people, but I doubt that the number given represented real populations."  - Brant Gardner 

you're welcome

Thanks Brant 

Edited June 1, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

"I don't think that you should take large numbers seriously in ancient documents. They mean that there were a lot of people, but I doubt that the number given represented real populations."  - Brant Gardner 

you're welcome

Thanks Brant 

This begs the question of large population bases actually existing, and ignores the instances in which large populations have actually been killed in combat, or as a direct result of the war situation (starvation, exposure, etc.).

As I have said previously here, some figures are given as sheer bluster, and we know of actual instances in history when very exaggerated figures have been used.  That does not  mean that all such figures are always exaggerated as you virtually always claim.  That is bad historiography, and it is irresponsible.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/24/2016 at 11:13 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not saying that, I am trying to say we can't examine books like Genesis. 

For example, Science proved that Earth is billions of years old, but most people believe the six day creation is not literal.  

You can never falsify something that is not literal, you can't measure that. 

Of course one can examine books like Genesis, and it is done regularly by scientists.  You apparently believe that only an evangelical fundamentalist interpretation of biblical books is valid, and then you turn right around and condemn that evangelical fundamentalist interpretation.  You guarantee your negative results by adopting crippling false assumptions at the outset.  You do the same thing to the Book of Mormon.  Scientists, on the other hand, are not afraid to examine the actual hard data and draw their conclusions from the results.  If you were a true skeptic and believer in science, I would not have to explain that to you.

It is clear that you didn't understand what I said. Science makes predictions.

Science can indeed make predictions based on already extant  theories.  For example, Einstein formulated abstract theories which are still being tested and verified.  But science also analyzes material and data, draws conclusions and correlations from them, and formulates further theories.  Some of that is deductive and some is inductive.  Most is a mix.  Those who do science understand that one can do field work, while others do lab work.  It is a communal effort in which data and potential conclusions are shared.

Did LDS scholars expect to find evidence for Mulek yes or no?

I did not expect to find evidence of Mulek.  And it was not on my radar.  I was surprised when I read Yohanan Aharoni's conclusions on the Arad evidence, and quite satisfied when David Noel Freedman agreed that there was a plausible case to be made.  I wrote it up immediately after that.

What about the Prophet Zenock? Do LDS scholars expect to find evidence that Zenock existed?

I haven't given that a lot of thought.  Evidence doesn't just suddenly drop into one's hands.  If such evidence comes along, it will likely be a surprise, as it was for Mulek/MalkiYahu.

Science makes expectations, what is how we can know when something is falsifiable. You shoot the arrow after drawing the target, not before, that is how science works. 

Brant Gardner doesn't expect to find the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, that is a very important reason why Book of Mormon is not falsifiable. Brant tries to find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon (parallelism, which is not useful), but not the other way around. So it is clear the Book of Mormon is not falsifiable. 

What you are saying here doesn't jibe with what Gardner himself says and does.  And of course the Book of Mormon is falsifiable, as is the Bible.  I am not convinced that you know what "falsifiable" means.

Tacitus claim means nothing, I think his numbers are highly unreliable, we expect the ancients to make exaggerations.  

Tacitus had access to the actual Roman archives -- which no longer exist -- and thus had a much better idea of what happened at the siege of Jerusalem than someone who comes along two millennia later wondering what actually happened.  I provided a reasonable context, which you automatically reject.  That isn't how science or historiography proceeds.

because we need many millions in order to make sense of the (alleged) 2 million that died. Remember, most LDS I read say that the Olmecs are not the Jaradites, the Jaradites were a minority at most. 

Most LDS have said nothing about the Olmec, and most have never heard of them.  I made a statement about the millions likely living in the Olmec heartland, and you instantly inflated my statement to "many millions" (and demanded a CFR to support the inflated claims), and this is a regular habit you have.  You heed to ask for specific CFRs tied to the actual claims made.  Not to your automatically inflated claims -- the straw men you create.  That is something a scientist would not do.

 

[Jim Stiles]

On 5/20/2016 at 5:31 PM, DJBrown said:

Many misread this portion of Ether.  If you read closely, you will see that those two million people were killed over a period of time in which there were 5 kings against whom Coriantumr fought.  And in that window of time, there are two 2-year periods described as well.

The kings against whom Coriantumr fought after Ether told Coriantumr that he would live to see the destruction of his household (Ether 13:20-21):

1.  Shared

2.  Brother Shared (Gilead)

3.  Gilead's High Priest (who murdered Gilead as he "sat upon his throne").

4. Secret combination who killed Gilead's High Priest in a "secret pass" (Lib).

5.  Shiz (Lib's brother).

So two million people died in warfare over a period of many years (The critics never understand this text or represent this correctly).

Can anybody provide examples of other locations where fields of bones have been found from battles or wars that took place in the same time period (2nd and 3rd centuries BC)?

In fact, the text of the Book of Mormon describes these bodies being left upon the ground to rot.  Anybody familiar with how long it takes for a body to completely decompose (including bones) when left on the ground?  Anybody familiar with how the conditions in Mesoamerica influence the length of time required for a body to decompose.

Suffice it to say, this is a criticism that is uninformed on many levels.

A body left on the ground will be completely decomposed (including bones) within a few years.  Heat and moisture speed up the process.  

 

In the acidic soils of the eastern United States, ten years in the ground would result in the complete decomposition of a human body, including the skeleton.  In the alkaline soils of the western United States and the Middle East, a skeleton could last forever.  That is why I do not put a great deal of faith in the scientific explanations of how people migrated to the eastern part of North America because of the acidic soils has destroyed a great deal of the anthropological record.

[TheSkepticChristian]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You apparently believe that only an evangelical fundamentalist interpretation of biblical books is valid

I am not saying that, but never mind. I no longer wish to explain that point. 

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Evidence doesn't just suddenly drop into one's hands. If such evidence comes along, it will likely be a surprise...I am not convinced that you know what "falsifiable" means.

Of course I know what "falsifiable" means, it means you have the ability to prove it wrong. Something that is falsifiable makes predictions! You expect evidence. 

If you don't expect anything, it is not falsifiable. . 

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This begs the question of large population bases actually existing, and ignores the instances in which large populations have actually been killed in combat, or as a direct result of the war situation (starvation, exposure, etc.).

I want you to debate Brant Gardner on that issue please. 

Edited June 2, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

26 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

.................................................................  

Of course I know what "falsifiable" means, it means you have the ability to prove it wrong. Something that is falsifiable makes predictions! You expect evidence. 

If you don't expect anything, it is not falsifiable. 

From the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false."  This, of course, applies only in the empirical sciences.  Thus, an archeologist recovering organic or inorganic materials can subject them to a wide variety of scientific tests, along with statistical seriation for artifacts.  He may do DNA, Carbon-14, electron microscopy, and many other biological & physical tests to determine the age, composition, and nature of the materials recovered.  He may have epigraphers analyze and translate inscriptions.  Palynologists will determine what sort of plants were raised and eaten, and human bone isotope analysis will further tell what sort of animals and plants made up the human diet.  There are many other such tests available.

Thus, if the Bible, the Iliad, or the Book of Mormon place people in a particular place at a particular time, it is possible to determine whether such a people actually occupied such a place at that time, and what the nature of the culture was.  Moreover, settlement pattern analysis can determine the population density of that people.  Like most evangelical fundamentalists, you appear not to want any of this to be true -- because it carries with it the risk that your basic belief system may be upended and destroyed.  It is the very falsifiability of those books which engenders your deep-seated fear that they might contain real events which can be verified.

I want you to debate Brant Gardner on that issue please. 

I have no issue to debate with Gardner.  I read and understand his books, articles, and comments:  They are excellent.  I only wish that you would read them more closely.