Meldrum Takes it Up a Notch - Revolutionizes Science Itself

[Calm]

"Further I find it exciting that there are so many new books coming out. The Interpreter is publishing. Kofford has of course been publishing a lot of good stuff for a few years now. Salt Press has more or less become part of the Maxwell Institute but I always liked their literary takes on scripture. BCC has started up a press. I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting. We really are in a renaissance of Mormon scholarship with a pretty fantastic breadth."

I agree.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Bob for your comments.  I made a comparison earlier about the FIRM group (Meldrum et al.) is doing by cherry picking science to support their claims, and I compared that to how an outsider might view other Mormon apologists like Sorenson.  While this comparison isn't an exact match, I got a lot of push back from other commentators about this comparison.  Any thoughts from your perspective?  

 

They are the same although Dr. Sorenson has a doctorate and can write like he's writing about science.  When it comes to geography and cartography, there are certain methodologies in their literature which Dr. Sorenson doesn't use.   At least what I can tell and I believe a BYU professor has actually pointed out this problem in a review in FARMs while at the same time endorsing Dr. Sorenson.  

[Rajah Manchou]

On 4/7/2017 at 9:43 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Can you point to even Jenkins reading and responding to this in detail, not in a blog, but in a peer reviewed journal?

And where does Jenkins say anything final and definitive about this?

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

For real, these cylinders keep coming up in discussions as evidence of a script in Mesoamerica, but then anytime more details are requested the subject is dropped.

Where is the Mormon research on these? Anything more recent than 1970? Do we even know where these seals are today?

[Kevin Christensen]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

For real, these cylinders keep coming up in discussions as evidence of a script in Mesoamerica, but then anytime more details are requested the subject is dropped.

Where is the Mormon research on these? Anything more recent than 1970? Do we even know where these seals are today?

There isn't more research on them.  Sorenson regularly mentions them (for example, p 162), has pictures and cites the original publication by David H. Kelly in American Antiquity 31/5, 1966, 744-6.  I gather that they sit in a museum somewhere.  

It happens that the SEHA 122 paper is remarkably thorough and careful, and that, lacking additional samples and the discovery of a Rosetta Stone equivalent from Mesoamerica, what more could be done?  If you have suggestions or ideas, go ahead.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There isn't more research on them.  Sorenson regularly mentions them (for example, p 162), has pictures and cites the original publication by David H. Kelly in American Antiquity 31/5, 1966, 744-6.  I gather that they sit in a museum somewhere.  

It happens that the SEHA 122 paper is remarkably thorough and careful, and that, lacking additional samples and the discovery of a Rosetta Stone equivalent from Mesoamerica, what more could be done?  If you have suggestions or ideas, go ahead.

From FAIR's article on the topic:

"Characters in the authentic Anthon transcript(s) have been reported on two "Mexican seals made of baked clay" dating from no later than 400 B.C. Non-LDS archaeologists have remarked on this "hitherto unknown writing system" which "closely resemble various oriental scripts ranging from Burma and China to the rim of the Mediterranean," which if authentic "would almost surely be...an instance of transpacific contact during the Preclassic [pre-A.D. 400]." Other examples of the same script may also have been found between 1921 and 1932. This is currently an area requiring more research."

Its interesting, but it seems to support the overwhelming consensus that all pre-1492 migrations to the New World came out of Asia. I've searched and have found nothing to suggest the seals are a semitic-based script. The only conclusion I can draw from it is that the Reformed Egyptian of the Anthon Transcript closely resembles various oriental scripts ranging from Burma and China and the rim of the Mediterranean. Maybe Brahmi, Syriac or Sogdian?

If that's the case, how does the Book of Mormon account for the arrival of an Indo-Burmese or Chinese culture bearing a script that was invented after the Lehites arrived?
 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

For real, these cylinders keep coming up in discussions as evidence of a script in Mesoamerica, but then anytime more details are requested the subject is dropped.

Where is the Mormon research on these? Anything more recent than 1970? Do we even know where these seals are today?

For the reasons you list they don't seem that relevant beyond suggesting more scripts were in use than many thought. I'm dubious about the Anthon Transcript claims although it should be easy enough to compare them with a few other test comparisons like that Roman shorthand and see which has more matches.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The only conclusion I can draw from it is that the Reformed Egyptian of the Anthon Transcript closely resembles various oriental scripts ranging from Burma and China and the rim of the Mediterranean. Maybe Brahmi, Syriac or Sogdian?

 

You might find this blog interesting:

The Anthon Transcript - Cipher Mysteries

Quote

Regardless of all that, my particular interest in the Anthon Transcript is as a cipher historian looking at a single contentious document. Back in 2004, I exchanged a number of emails with Richard Stout, who has researched extensively on this subject to build up his own (very specific) claims. However, what follows below relates to my own opinion of what we can learn about the Transcript purely from its alphabet, and is completely independent of Richard’s ideas and interpretations.

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by cinepro

[farmgirl]

I am curious to know if any of you have read the approximately 850 page Volume One of the Universal Model?  I was curious to learn more about some of the ideas presented and have actually read the entire thing myself.  The Universal Model makes more sense to me than modern science's current explanations of natural processes.  The author, Dean Sessions, painstakingly lays out his case with scores of quotes from scientific journal articles backing up his evidence.  The researchers have spent years (about 30 I believe) doing the research and experimentation.   Questioning is important and questioning with an open mind is even more important! What if the theories we have all been taught such as Big Bang, Accretion, Uniformitarianism, Magma, Relativity, and Evolution, etc are incorrect?  Isn't that interesting to contemplate?  Don't forget, they are just theories yet have been taught as if they were natural laws.  I'm not saying that the Universal Model is completely correct or doctrine of any kind but I think they may be onto something.  Just sayin'

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, farmgirl said:

I am curious to know if any of you have read the approximately 850 page Volume One of the Universal Model?  I was curious to learn more about some of the ideas presented and have actually read the entire thing myself.  The Universal Model makes more sense to me than modern science's current explanations of natural processes.  The author, Dean Sessions, painstakingly lays out his case with scores of quotes from scientific journal articles backing up his evidence.  The researchers have spent years (about 30 I believe) doing the research and experimentation.   Questioning is important and questioning with an open mind is even more important! What if the theories we have all been taught such as Big Bang, Accretion, Uniformitarianism, Magma, Relativity, and Evolution, etc are incorrect?  Isn't that interesting to contemplate?  Don't forget, they are just theories yet have been taught as if they were natural laws.  I'm not saying that the Universal Model is completely correct or doctrine of any kind but I think they may be onto something.  Just sayin'

How much science background do you have?  It helps to have some so you can see where he is making inappropriate assumptions and interpretations as well as misusing data.

Quotes, if they don't provide enough context, can be misunderstood or even intentionally misleading.

"Theory" in science does not mean "speculation", but a "set of ideas".

"1. a coherent group of tested general propositions,commonly regarded as correct, that can be usedas principles of explanation and prediction for aclass of phenomena:"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory

Edited January 22, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

I would suggest reading those who critique his ideas as well as Sessions' own work:

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/universal-model/

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, farmgirl said:

I am curious to know if any of you have read the approximately 850 page Volume One of the Universal Model?  I was curious to learn more about some of the ideas presented and have actually read the entire thing myself.  The Universal Model makes more sense to me than modern science's current explanations of natural processes.  The author, Dean Sessions, painstakingly lays out his case with scores of quotes from scientific journal articles backing up his evidence.  The researchers have spent years (about 30 I believe) doing the research and experimentation.   Questioning is important and questioning with an open mind is even more important! What if the theories we have all been taught such as Big Bang, Accretion, Uniformitarianism, Magma, Relativity, and Evolution, etc are incorrect?  Isn't that interesting to contemplate?  Don't forget, they are just theories yet have been taught as if they were natural laws.  I'm not saying that the Universal Model is completely correct or doctrine of any kind but I think they may be onto something.  Just sayin'

The book is quackery. He quotes reputable scientific sources but often rips the ideas out of context and takes them places the quoted writers would be horrified by. He portrays a kind of common sense approach but his logical leaps are crazy and the writer clearly does not understand the scientific models he is trying to refute. Please read those who critique it before accepting it.

You also need to understand what a scientific theory is. Saying a scientific theory is just a theory does not mean it is just a guess. Some are more rooted than others and many of the ones Sessions attacks have much more backing than his alternative theory. Sometimes we do have competing models and sometimes the one that seems less reliable or more shakily supported does win out but that is unlikely here.

The book is so blatantly dishonest or so incredibly ignorant that it is not a starting point for challenging mainline theories. And the writers know it.  If the writers  truly had a working competing theory they would be drowning academia with papers, recruiting experts to expand on it and develop it, and publish it far and wide to disseminate it. Instead they target a small group (mostly LDS) that are likely to want to believe it in the first place and sell it in a horribly overpriced book series with a very limited distribution.

Edited January 22, 2018 by The Nehor

[Calm]

"Meldrum"

You probably mean Sessions, though Meldrum does the same at times.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

"Meldrum"

You probably mean Sessions, though Meldrum does the same at times.

You are right. I think of it as part of his work but he is not the author, just the promoter.

[Kenngo1969]

We need a "holding nose" icon for putrid, smelly, stinky threads!  

[farmgirl]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The book is quackery. He quotes reputable scientific sources but often rips the ideas out of context and takes them places the quoted writers would be horrified by. He portrays a kind of common sense approach but his logical leaps are crazy and the writer clearly does not understand the scientific models he is trying to refute. Please read those who critique it before accepting it.

You also need to understand what a scientific theory is. Saying a scientific theory is just a theory does not mean it is just a guess. Some are more rooted than others and many of the ones Sessions attacks have much more backing than his alternative theory. Sometimes we do have competing models and sometimes the one that seems less reliable or more shakily supported does win out but that is unlikely here.

The book is so blatantly dishonest or so incredibly ignorant that it is not a starting point for challenging mainline theories. And the writers know it.  If the writers  truly had a working competing theory they would be drowning academia with papers, recruiting experts to expand on it and develop it, and publish it far and wide to disseminate it. Instead they target a small group (mostly LDS) that are likely to want to believe it in the first place and sell it in a horribly overpriced book series with a very limited distribution.

You didn't answer my question.  Have you read the book?  With words such as "quackery, blatantly dishonest, incredibly ignorant" it seems you may have missed my point about questioning with an open mind.  

As far as quoting the scientific journals out of context, Sessions uses the findings within science to point out the contradictions now existing within science and to also back the ideas he is promoting.  Literally, there are several quotes from the journals on every page and of course they would be considered "out of context" if he can use them to back his point.  But that's just it...they back his findings.  I will look into reading those who critique his work with an open mind.  But if they use personal attacks I have a hard time taking them seriously. 

I fully understand the difference between hypothesis, theory and natural law.  Of course the current scientific theories have "more backing" than Session's alternative theories because they have been the dominating ideas within academia for the last 100 or so years.  Anything outside of the magma/accretion/evolution box has been blacklisted, ignored and ridiculed. 

Which brings us to the obvious reason why Mr. Sessions could NOT have gone the traditional route to introduce his work. I believe this is why the work was done with private funds for several decades then introduced all at once. As for the cost of the book which you say is "horribly overpriced",  I bought mine for $50.  I worked on a family history book for my family which ended up being 450 pages and only 50 pages of color.  Our COST on the book was $50 each.  The Universal Model book is 850 pages of high quality binding and print with absolutely beautiful color photos on every page.  When was the last time you could buy a text book of that quality for that price?  (Content aside) And of course Mr. Sessions would  introduce his work first to the LDS community because they are his friends and like minded truth seekers who take the scriptures as their guide for learning by study and faith. It's called disruptive innovation.  The claims in the Universal Model may seem "crazy" but Mr. Sessions openly invites universities and individuals everywhere to reproduce his experiments and test his theories.  

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, farmgirl said:

You didn't answer my question.  Have you read the book?  With words such as "quackery, blatantly dishonest, incredibly ignorant" it seems you may have missed my point about questioning with an open mind.  

As far as quoting the scientific journals out of context, Sessions uses the findings within science to point out the contradictions now existing within science and to also back the ideas he is promoting.  Literally, there are several quotes from the journals on every page and of course they would be considered "out of context" if he can use them to back his point.  But that's just it...they back his findings.  I will look into reading those who critique his work with an open mind.  But if they use personal attacks I have a hard time taking them seriously. 

I fully understand the difference between hypothesis, theory and natural law.  Of course the current scientific theories have "more backing" than Session's alternative theories because they have been the dominating ideas within academia for the last 100 or so years.  Anything outside of the magma/accretion/evolution box has been blacklisted, ignored and ridiculed. 

Which brings us to the obvious reason why Mr. Sessions could NOT have gone the traditional route to introduce his work. I believe this is why the work was done with private funds for several decades then introduced all at once. As for the cost of the book which you say is "horribly overpriced",  I bought mine for $50.  I worked on a family history book for my family which ended up being 450 pages and only 50 pages of color.  Our COST on the book was $50 each.  The Universal Model book is 850 pages of high quality binding and print with absolutely beautiful color photos on every page.  When was the last time you could buy a text book of that quality for that price?  (Content aside) And of course Mr. Sessions would  introduce his work first to the LDS community because they are his friends and like minded truth seekers who take the scriptures as their guide for learning by study and faith. It's called disruptive innovation.  The claims in the Universal Model may seem "crazy" but Mr. Sessions openly invites universities and individuals everywhere to reproduce his experiments and test his theories.  

 

Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

Edit: I apologize if that seems harsh. We had a discussion of many of the theories put out there in this book in this thread and I challenged several of them. Please read them and we can discuss them if you like.

Edited January 22, 2018 by The Nehor

[clarkgoble]

On 4/10/2017 at 6:41 PM, Bob Crockett said:

They are the same although Dr. Sorenson has a doctorate and can write like he's writing about science.  When it comes to geography and cartography, there are certain methodologies in their literature which Dr. Sorenson doesn't use.   At least what I can tell and I believe a BYU professor has actually pointed out this problem in a review in FARMs while at the same time endorsing Dr. Sorenson.  

I think you're talking about some of the disagreements between Sorenson and Brant Gardner who occasionally posts here. Brant has a Masters, not a PhD as I recall but was critical of some of the parallels in Sorenson's last book. Brant doesn't work at BYU though. 

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you're talking about some of the disagreements between Sorenson and Brant Gardner who occasionally posts here. Brant has a Masters, not a PhD as I recall but was critical of some of the parallels in Sorenson's last book. Brant doesn't work at BYU though. 

No.  I am not even aware of what Brant has written.   I refer to a book review by Bruce Warren in BYU Studies 30:3, where he reviews:

F. RICHARD HAUCK. Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon: Settlements and Routes in Ancient America. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988; JOHN L. SORENSON. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co. and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985.

Some quotes from Prof. Warren:

"At the present the present time most of the evidence for or against these two differing models of Book of Mormon geography would be classified as circumstantial . . . .No one would object to a revelation on the matter. . . . Sorenson's book has a good historical and cultural geographical approach to the problem.  He does not use any of the current mathematical or statistical approaches of contemporary geography."

Although Warren's review is favorable to Sorenson, as he says that Sorenson's views are better than Richard Hauck's, the message is really in the absence of the scientific approach by Sorenson.  Sorenson does not use accepted methodology to compare an ancient text to geography but instead uses suppositional eyeballing.  The reason, of course, is that there are not enough data points for Dr. Sorenson so he uses what he can.  Book of Mormon scholars should not invoke the scientific method to deceive the saints, in my view, when they don't use the scientific method.

But, among the objectional things Dr. Sorenson does in his works is attempts to use third-party recollection of inspired statements by Joseph Smith about Mexico.  That isn't science, and the third-party statements -- issued when Mormons were fleeing to Mexico to avoid polygamy persecution -- are just bogus. 

I realize that Dr. Sorenson has the advantage of having been published in the Ensign, which in my view constitutes tacit approval by the Brethren of what he is doing.  I realize that at a FARMS dinner, Elder Oaks complimented Dr. Sorenson for his work and that FARMS published Elder Oaks' speech.  That certainly complicates my critique of Dr. Sorenson, but my analysis remains unchanged.  His work on the Book of Mormon's geography is spectacularly unreliable.  Of course, Meldrum's theory is even more unreliable.

 

Edited January 22, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, farmgirl said:

You didn't answer my question.  Have you read the book?  With words such as "quackery, blatantly dishonest, incredibly ignorant" it seems you may have missed my point about questioning with an open mind.  

 

Farmgirl, can you cite two or three of the most impressive and revolutionary theories that you found in the "Universal Model"? 

We're not going to all go out and buy this $50 book because the marketing makes it look like it might not be a good investment, but it sounds like you were impressed with the book and since this is a discussion group, we would be more than willing to discuss it.

If nothing comes to mind immediately, I would be interested in discussing one of the claims as summarized on this critical blog:

Quote

 In a nutshell, Sessions rejects the existence of magma (deeply buried molten rock) and thinks the Earth has a core of ice instead of iron.

Does that sound like what you read in the book?

[bcuzbcuz]

On 1/22/2018 at 5:15 PM, farmgirl said:

You didn't answer my question.  Have you read the book?  With words such as "quackery, blatantly dishonest, incredibly ignorant" it seems you may have missed my point about questioning with an open mind.  

As far as quoting the scientific journals out of context, Sessions uses the findings within science to point out the contradictions now existing within science and to also back the ideas he is promoting.  Literally, there are several quotes from the journals on every page and of course they would be considered "out of context" if he can use them to back his point.  But that's just it...they back his findings.  I will look into reading those who critique his work with an open mind.  But if they use personal attacks I have a hard time taking them seriously. 

I fully understand the difference between hypothesis, theory and natural law.  Of course the current scientific theories have "more backing" than Session's alternative theories because they have been the dominating ideas within academia for the last 100 or so years.  Anything outside of the magma/accretion/evolution box has been blacklisted, ignored and ridiculed. 

Which brings us to the obvious reason why Mr. Sessions could NOT have gone the traditional route to introduce his work. I believe this is why the work was done with private funds for several decades then introduced all at once. As for the cost of the book which you say is "horribly overpriced",  I bought mine for $50.  I worked on a family history book for my family which ended up being 450 pages and only 50 pages of color.  Our COST on the book was $50 each.  The Universal Model book is 850 pages of high quality binding and print with absolutely beautiful color photos on every page.  When was the last time you could buy a text book of that quality for that price?  (Content aside) And of course Mr. Sessions would  introduce his work first to the LDS community because they are his friends and like minded truth seekers who take the scriptures as their guide for learning by study and faith. It's called disruptive innovation.  The claims in the Universal Model may seem "crazy" but Mr. Sessions openly invites universities and individuals everywhere to reproduce his experiments and test his theories.  

 

Did you read the book? Usually a good lead off question. A negative response then followed with, "Well then, you don't know what you're talking about."

But there are a good number of books I haven't read, yet I know their content to be total horse puckey. I don't read any books about Scientology (I even had to debate with myself if I should capitalise the first letter to their name). I have read some of L Ron Hubbard's science fiction and it was such irredeemable trash that I have never read anything else he wrote. His ideas about religion would fascinate me even less.

Since reading every single book about every single subject is entirely impossible, I resort to a system of sorting. I look for authors whose writing I have enjoyed in the past. I look for subjects that I am learned in and that I enjoy reading about. Egyptian history and hieroglyphics is an example. I have bookshelves filled with writings and research about ancient Egypt. 

I taught sciences in high school (secondary school in Canada and Sweden). Sciences interest me and I have done years of study, research and evaluation of science matters.

I don't read any books about the flat earth theory. The earth is not flat, nor is there a theory about such a thing, simply because calling something a theory doesn't make it so. There is, however, a lot of nonsense both online and in books about the earth being flat and where the authors try to disprove satellites, travel to the moon and many basic facts about the earth. I don't waste my time reading total nonsense.

Now to the book of your choice, The Universal Model, by Dean Sessions. I have read their site online. I'm not overly impressed when someone tries to sell something as "turning established science on its head" or that it reveals "long hidden scientific truths". It's like finding a YouTube video trying to convince people that a diet of drinking urine will cure all that ails one. 

Going beyond the sales hype, the site claims to reveal 13 natural laws, including 350 discoveries. I've looked every where I can to find Sessions 13 natural laws, listed and debated online. One site claims there are 7 universal laws. I also found a list of "12 Immutable Universal laws", on a site dedicated to "The Kybalion" (whatever that is). To find out if Sessions 13 laws are the same + one, apparently, I have to buy the book.

Sessions claims to include 350 discoveries. If one of those discoveries includes the earth model at the bottom of the universalmodel.com page, I would expect a wide open debate online. I couldn't find one. Please refer me to it if you have it. Sessions claims that the core of the earth is made of solid ice. He also claims that that that solid ice core is surrounded by liquid water. Since that proposal flies in the face of every piece of current research I would expect there to be a debate I could follow, either online or through scholarly journals. I couldn't find any. Please refer me to them if you have them.

If the core of the earth is ice and water, please explain how Earthquake waves travel through it. Hint: The S waves...., not to be confused with the P, or Love, or Rayleigh waves of an earthquake.... cannot propagate through water. http://allshookup.org/quakes/wavetype.htm

I hope you take some time to answer.

[clarkgoble]

On 1/22/2018 at 11:43 AM, Bob Crockett said:

No.  I am not even aware of what Brant has written.   I refer to a book review by Bruce Warren in BYU Studies 30:3, where he reviews:

F. RICHARD HAUCK. Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon: Settlements and Routes in Ancient America. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988; JOHN L. SORENSON. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co. and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985.

That's extremely dated referring to Sorenson's original book from way back in the 80's. The review is from 1990. Really tells us nothing about what's happened since then with work on geography. I'm not sure I'd disagree with any of the points made in that review, but I'm not sure I'd say we have scientific evidence for Book of Mormon geography even today. That's not to say there aren't strong reasons. Just that I don't they rise to a sufficient level that we could call it a confirmed theory. I don't think anyone would disagree on that point though.

With regards to third hand references, I think you're exaggerating. They don't all come from people setting up the Mormon colonies in Mexico nor that time period.  That said while such statements can be interesting, I'd agree they don't have the strength of first hand accounts recorded at the time. Personally I don't think Joseph had strong views on Book of Mormon geography further he tended to use Nephite/Lamanite for all native Americans but I suspect in a naive way. (Contra some I think whatever Moroni told him didn't necessarily include knowledge of geography) Typically people appeal to the Zelph incident along with a few other statements for his geographical beliefs. But I think when you start looking closer at the data it's more ambiguous than it appears at first glance. MesoAmerican limited geography proponents typically point to Joseph's 15 July 1842 editorial which discusses Guatemala. There's also the 1 Oct 1842 editorial which most presume Joseph wrote (although it could have been ghost written) saying Bountiful was in Guatemala. However even if he thought that, it's not clear it came from revelation.

Edited January 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[bcuzbcuz]

On 2018-01-22 at 7:49 PM, cinepro said:

Farmgirl, can you cite two or three of the most impressive and revolutionary theories that you found in the "Universal Model"? 

We're not going to all go out and buy this $50 book because the marketing makes it look like it might not be a good investment, but it sounds like you were impressed with the book and since this is a discussion group, we would be more than willing to discuss it.

If nothing comes to mind immediately, I would be interested in discussing one of the claims as summarized on this critical blog:

Does that sound like what you read in the book?

Is it just me? Or do those who come here to express a belief in Dean Sessions, ”Universal Model”, make a statement of support, but when challenged and asked for specific issues, then disappear?

Sessions makes a good number of claims about his ¿theory? of the universe; the age of the earth, how fossils are created, that the center of the earth is made of ice and water and many, many more.

Sessions claims to reveal 13 natural laws. But unless one buys his book, those 13 natural laws are difficult to pin down. I can’t find them listed anywhere. I have found natural laws listed by other authors but have no idea whether Sessions natural laws are the same. But if he has ”discoverd” previously unknown natural laws, I would like to review them.

Sessions claims to have made 350 discoveries. That’s a lot. Most scientists would think their career remarkable if they had found 1 (one) discovery. The difference between a scientist making a discovery and a late night infomercial announcing a new and miraculous discovery, is that a scientist is expected to provide proof. When a discovery can be tested, double blind proved, argued for and against and critically analyzed, then it MAY be considered a discovery. Sometimes a discovery never moves beyond being a theory because although the idea fits all current and  tested propositions, it can never be given a claim of absoluteness, such as the theory of gravity.

But where are Sessions ”discoveries” discussed, reviewed, edited, argued, or verified? 

Personally, I don’t think Sessions discoveries will warrant very much discussion because his discoveries have not been researched. Neither by himself or anyone else. They aren’t discoveries. They are ideas proposed as answers to questions that only arise because of religious concepts and problems with those concepts. For example, it can be read in the Bible that the sun stood still in .Joshua 10:13. Science says that if the sun stood still, the earth would have been put through unbelievable stresses, that would have destroyed much of the earth. Religions can say that the sun stood still....because God did it. endof question. I don’t know if Sessions provides an answer to Joshua 10:13. I’m not going to buy his 85 $ book to find out.

But back to my original question. Where have all the defenders of Session’s book(s) gone? Long time passing.

[cinepro]

9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Is it just me? Or do those who come here to express a belief in Dean Sessions, ”Universal Model”, make a statement of support, but when challenged and asked for specific issues, then disappear?

Sessions makes a good number of claims about his ¿theory? of the universe; the age of the earth, how fossils are created, that the center of the earth is made of ice and water and many, many more.

Sessions claims to reveal 13 natural laws. But unless one buys his book, those 13 natural laws are difficult to pin down. I can’t find them listed anywhere. I have found natural laws listed by other authors but have no idea whether Sessions natural laws are the same. But if he has ”discoverd” previously unknown natural laws, I would like to review them.

Sessions claims to have made 350 discoveries. That’s a lot. Most scientists would think their career remarkable if they had found 1 (one) discovery. The difference between a scientist making a discovery and a late night infomercial announcing a new and miraculous discovery, is that a scientist is expected to provide proof. When a discovery can be tested, double blind proved, argued for and against and critically analyzed, then it MAY be considered a discovery. Sometimes a discovery never moves beyond being a theory because although the idea fits all current and  tested propositions, it can never be given a claim of absoluteness, such as the theory of gravity.

But where are Sessions ”discoveries” discussed, reviewed, edited, argued, or verified? 

Personally, I don’t think Sessions discoveries will warrant very much discussion because his discoveries have not been researched. Neither by himself or anyone else. They aren’t discoveries. They are ideas proposed as answers to questions that only arise because of religious concepts and problems with those concepts. For example, it can be read in the Bible that the sun stood still in .Joshua 10:13. Science says that if the sun stood still, the earth would have been put through unbelievable stresses, that would have destroyed much of the earth. Religions can say that the sun stood still....because God did it. endof question. I don’t know if Sessions provides an answer to Joshua 10:13. I’m not going to buy his 85 $ book to find out.

But back to my original question. Where have all the defenders of Session’s book(s) gone? Long time passing.

Not to toss a grenade into the discussion, but this is the thing that has always mystified me about Book of Mormon believers in academia.

If you really believe the events in the Book of Mormon happened and that those people existed, then the Book of Mormon is the most incredible and important artifact of the New World in existence by an order of magnitude.  Religious considerations aside, if someone in that field really thinks it's a factual record, then they would be trying to present it in every archaeological journal in the world. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Not to toss a grenade into the discussion, but this is the thing that has always mystified me about Book of Mormon believers in academia.

If you really believe the events in the Book of Mormon happened and that those people existed, then the Book of Mormon is the most incredible and important artifact of the New World in existence by an order of magnitude.  Religious considerations aside, if someone in that field really thinks it's a factual record, then they would be trying to present it in every archaeological journal in the world. 

You deal with the same problem that others have when coming up with an unproven concept. You have to prove it before you can get anywhere with it. If they are obnoxious about it like Galileo then you can expect the same reception that Galileo got.

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

Not to toss a grenade into the discussion, but this is the thing that has always mystified me about Book of Mormon believers in academia.

If you really believe the events in the Book of Mormon happened and that those people existed, then the Book of Mormon is the most incredible and important artifact of the New World in existence by an order of magnitude.  Religious considerations aside, if someone in that field really thinks it's a factual record, then they would be trying to present it in every archaeological journal in the world. 

When I was growing up (note to self: That means over half a century ago) it was the general opinion that new discoveries made in Central America of buildings, paintings, wall glyphs etc., etc., were confirmation of the Book of Mormon story. Paintings that displayed different skin tones, one lighter, one darker, were merely repeats of what everyone knew to be true, the story of the Nephites and Lamanites. It was considered a mere matter of time before the absolute proof of such things would be nailed down.

I remember a Sunday night youth fireside where we viewed, in awe, pictures of a tree glyph and then read from the BofM, about the tree of life. The same presenter had photos of a damaged sculpture of a glyph that could be interpretted as a large creature, with a trunk. Without any message to the contrary, we left the meeting burning with the conviction of having seen Nephite rock sculptures. 

Do the youth of today still hold such firesides?

Are there any skilled anthropologists, currently digging in Central America or who have recently returned, that present new finds with a nod to the Book of Mormon? 

BUt yes, your grenade has ”made me” go completely off rail from the original discussion. PLease, join me, as I return to our adventure at hand, the exciting, the thrilling, the unknown, of Sessions, ”Universal Model”. I want to be the first who knows when Sessions model is confirmed, when drilling through earth’s crust, huge under earth oceans are discovered, just like in the 1959 movie, ” Jules Verne’s, Journey to the Center of the Earth”.

There may be, as in the movie, a giant ocean, where one can construct a raft out of giant mushrooms, be chased by  Dimetrodons or Megalasaurus’ and find an ancient Atlantis offering bowl to float on a sea of magma. (I’m not making this up). Pat Boone and James Mason were marvelous in the movie.