This is where the Book of Mormon happened, according to AI

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is certainly an interesting exercise in how AI works!

I wonder if that was programmed in or ‘learned’.

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder if that was programmed in or ‘learned’.

The caginess on religious, cultural, social topics is likely programmed in. Earlier versions of ChatGPT that I tried weren't nearly as afraid to upset humans

[Zosimus]

Here's an example of the output the GPT provides when asked if it can identify the location of the book based on the documents ((Clark and Sorenson internal mappings) I've uploaded so far.

Zosimus: where did the events described in the book take place?

GPT-4: To identify the location where the events described in the book took place, I'll analyze the key geographical, cultural, and technological details provided in your uploaded documents. The book describes a land separated by an isthmus, with distinct northern and southern territories, various cities, and specific topographical features. It also mentions various flora, fauna, military technologies, and transportation methods relevant between 2500 BC and 420 AD.

Based on the geographical descriptions:

The presence of an isthmus separating northern and southern lands, with both eastern and western coastlines, implies a landmass situated between two larger bodies of water.
The description of the eastern wilderness being wider and lower than the western, but not as wide as the southern wilderness, suggests significant geographical variation across the region.
The mention of specific cities, their locations in highland valleys or river basins, and distances traveled between them (e.g., the Southern City three weeks’ travel south from the Central City) provides clues about the terrain and distances involved.
The reference to a defensive city guarding a route to the land northward near the narrow neck indicates strategic military placements.
Considering the cultural and technological aspects:

The presence of iron/steel swords, chariots, boats, and other items listed in your documents indicates a society with advanced metallurgy and transportation technologies.
The flora and fauna (wheat, barley, horses, elephants, etc.) suggest a region capable of supporting agriculture and large animals.
Based on this information, the described land seems to resemble an area with diverse topography, situated between two significant bodies of water, capable of supporting advanced agriculture and metallurgy, and with a strategic military layout. However, the precise real-world location matching all these criteria isn't immediately clear from historical records. The description is somewhat generic and could potentially fit multiple regions around the world.

Without additional specific details or archaeological evidence, it's challenging to pinpoint an exact real-world location. The document appears to describe a complex society with various geographical features, but it lacks unique identifiers that would tie it conclusively to a known historical location. The mix of described technologies and fauna, some of which (like elephants) were not universally distributed, further complicates the identification.

In the absence of more definitive evidence or clear historical parallels, the location remains speculative based on the provided information.

Zosimus: what is your best guess as to the location of the isthmus described in the book?

GPT-4: Based on the detailed geographical features and historical context provided in the documents, the most plausible location for the isthmus described in the book could be in a region that meets the following criteria:

Presence of an Isthmus: The area is characterized by a narrow strip of land connecting two larger landmasses, with seas to the east and west.

Diverse Geography: The description of different wilderness areas to the east and west, and the presence of highland valleys and large river basins, suggests a region with varied topography.

Suitable for Ancient Agriculture and Fauna: The region must be conducive to the growth of crops like wheat and barley and be able to support a range of animals, including horses and possibly elephants.

Advanced Metallurgy and Transportation: The presence of iron/steel weapons, chariots, and ships indicates a society with significant technological development.

Given these criteria, a few regions in the ancient world could potentially match the description:

Near East and Mediterranean Regions: These areas had advanced metallurgies, diverse fauna, and agriculture during the described period. The isthmus could potentially be in areas like the Isthmus of Suez (connecting Africa and Asia) or the Isthmus of Corinth in Greece. However, the presence of elephants as a native species would be unusual in these locations.

Indian Subcontinent: Particularly the area around the Indian Peninsula, which has diverse geography and a history of advanced societies. The presence of elephants and other fauna aligns well with this region. The isthmus in this case could refer to a part of the Indian Peninsula itself or a connection to another landmass.

Southeast Asia: Regions like the Malay Peninsula or the Isthmus of Kra, which connect the Asian mainland with the larger islands of Indonesia. These areas have rich biodiversity, including elephants, and have historically supported advanced agricultural societies.

Without more specific information, it is challenging to pinpoint the exact location. Each of these regions has certain aspects that align with the description in the book, but also some inconsistencies. The actual location could be a historical region that is not immediately recognizable through modern geography or a fictionalized or idealized representation of a real-world location.

[Pyreaux]

It looks like its stuck on "elephants" for geography, what if you said "proboscidean mammals" to get mammoths into the mix. So we get anywhere on the American Contenants. Or say "mammoth" to get exclusively American candidates.

Then, reduce the tech from iron/steel, chariots and ships to; hardened copper-based alloy weapons, palanquins, and barges. Say amaranth; instead of wheat.

I would say include "temple" structures, but I don't want it to exclude the dirt mounds.

[Zosimus]

On 1/17/2024 at 12:12 AM, Pyreaux said:

It looks like its stuck on "elephants" for geography, what if you said "proboscidean mammals" to get mammoths into the mix. So we get anywhere on the American Contenants. Or say "mammoth" to get exclusively American candidates.

Then, reduce the tech from iron/steel, chariots and ships to; hardened copper-based alloy weapons, palanquins, and barges. Say amaranth; instead of wheat.

I would say include "temple" structures, but I don't want it to exclude the dirt mounds.

We could, but why adjust the text to fit an assumed geography model? The exercise is meant to determine whether there is a model that fits the text, not to make the text fit a model.

Edited January 18, 2024 by Zosimus

[Pyreaux]

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

We could, but that's the slippery slope. Why adjust the text to fit an assumed geography model? The exercise is meant to determine whether there is a model that fits the text, not to make the text fit a model.

Why are you limiting the search by a strict interpretation? It seems like an unreasonable limitation. Mammoths are in the Elephant family, and only discovered in the Americas in 1857, after the Book of Mormon was translated. An honest inquiry should then broaden the A.I.'s Google Search to include All Proboscideans.

The Bible has some anachronistic chariots, and sometimes chariots are clearly palanquins. Some Bible steel was actually steeled/hardened bronze weapons. At the very least say "steeled iron", as commercially produced steel wasn't around until 1855. Steeled iron came in other forms before then.

Though using the language as is is also an interesting exorcise. Like if we are exploring the Ethiopian model. Or setting both results side by side to see how much the language can be loosely interpreted before the A.I., only knowing common knowledge, guesses somewhere in the Americas.

Why are you leaving out other details that were discovered in the Americas, like cement cities, temples, chickens, etc.

Edited January 19, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Zosimus]

18 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Why are you limiting the search by a strict interpretation? It seems like an unreasonable limitation. Mammoths are in the Elephant family, and only discovered in the Americas in 1857, after the Book of Mormon was translated. An honest inquiry should then broaden the A.I.'s Google Search to include All Proboscideans.

The Bible has some anachronistic chariots, and sometimes chariots are clearly palanquins. Some Bible steel was actually steeled/hardened bronze weapons. At the very least say "steeled iron", as commercially produced steel wasn't around until 1855. Steeled iron came in other forms before then.

Though using the language as is is also an interesting exorcise. Like if we are exploring the Ethiopian model. Or setting both results side by side to see how much the language can be loosely interpreted before the A.I., only knowing common knowledge, guesses somewhere in the Americas.

Why are you leaving out other details that were discovered in the Americas, like cement cities, temples, chickens, etc.

I'm not leaving out the details, I'm just not adding details that aren't in the text. I'm serving only the text to the GPT and I'm not trying to interpret what the text says. If I started doing that there'd be no end to the various interpretations as everyone tries to expand the meaning of a word to favor their preferred model. 

I'd be willing to change elephant to proboscidean, but it doesn't necessarily resolve the anachronism. Even if the elephants in the book were mammoths, we need to find a place where mammoths co-existed with humans and were 'useful' to them. Even if we interpret steel as hardened bronze, we'd have to find a place where people were using hardened bronze swords in battle. Is there anywhere? I want to remain unbiased through this exercise, and I don't know how to do that when we have to start adding footnotes and caveats for every single object described in the book.

And should a model that requires a loose interpretation of the terms rank higher than a model that fits even a strict interpretation? Consider, is there anywhere between the 6h century BC and the 5th century AD where Jewish/Christians were riding elephants and chariots, forging steel swords and inscribing their histories in semitic characters on metal plates? Why yes there is:

There's ancient DNA evidence that a people of Mediterranean origin settled in South Asia within the early Book of Mormon time period. These Mediterranean people were contemporaries with the Nephites, they had sailed in boats across the ocean where they made use of domesticated elephants, inscribed in Hebrew/Semitic scripts on metal plates (also reference here) and were forging steel. Jewish families in the land (that were incidentally divided into northern and southern territories based on their "white" and "black" complexions) even had lost books from the Bible that are only now surfacing. These are real life "white" and "black" Jews with Middle Eastern DNA that were living thousands of miles across the ocean from Jerusalem at the same time as the Nephites and Lamantites, and they were doing the same things that the people in the Book of Mormon did, and at the same time. The metal plates "cherished by White Jews as their most precious historical documents" described in the screenshot to the left have been dated by some scholars to the same timeframe as Moroni (source). Isn't that something? 

But as interesting as the above details are, I wasn't planning on adding them because I didn't consider it fair to the other models. It'd bias the analysis heavily towards South Asia. So I'm unsure why I should add details about mammoths in North America.

How about this, we can upload a doc for each model where details can be added. But as I said earlier, I am not going to be the best person to prepare those docs. Going to need some Meso and Heartland experts to chip in.

As for cement cities, temples, chickens, etc., aren't these present in every model? Maybe what we need to do is narrow the field down to 4-5 geographies that fit the general hourglass shape as detailed in John Clark's "Revisiting "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies" and Sorenson's "Mormon's Map". This will allow GPT to include existing models and rank them according to their convergence with a strict or loose interpretation of the text. I propose including the following geographies:

• Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Mesoamerican model)
• Isthmus of Darien (Panama model)
• Isthmus of Kra (Malay model)
• Niagara Peninsula (Heartland model)
• Baja Peninsula (Baja model)
• Adam's Bridge (Sri Lanka model)

I'd like to include others like Ethiopia, but I can't find any research indicating where the hourglass-shaped geography would be for these, making it difficult for GPT to even consider them.

Edited January 19, 2024 by Zosimus

[Zosimus]

On 1/18/2024 at 10:06 PM, Pyreaux said:

Why are you leaving out other details that were discovered in the Americas, like cement cities, temples, chickens, etc.

Never heard much discussion about chickens in the Americas or Book of Mormon, curious to know what this is about

[williamsmith]

Ya, ChatGPT has totally cataloged "LDS Scholarship" and other related Scholarship on all these subjects in order to give us a proper understanding of them.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

Never heard much discussion about chickens in the Americas or Book of Mormon, curious to know what this is about

In the Book of Mormon, Jesus uses an analogy about chickens, "Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you." (3 Nephi 10:4)

The problem was there were no chickens in the Americas, so the Nephites shouldn't know what he is talking about.

Then, 10 years ago, the bones of pre-Columbian Polynesian Chickens are discovered in Chili, and chickens disappear from the anachronism list.

Quote

Chicken DNA Challenges Theory That Polynesians Beat Europeans to Americas

New finding casts doubt on the theory that Polynesians made it to South America.

 

National Geographic

March 19, 2014

So why did the chicken cross the Pacific? Well, apparently it didn't. At least not all the way.

Scientists looking into the DNA of ancient and modern chicken breeds found throughout Micronesia and Polynesia have determined that they are genetically distinct from those found in South America. The research runs counter to a popular theory that Polynesian seafarers might have reached the coast of South America hundreds of years ago, before European explorers.

Among the intriguing indications that contact might have been made between Polynesians and the native peoples of South America was the supposed pre-Columbian presence of non-native chickens, allegedly introduced to the continent by seafarers from South Pacific islands. More evidence comes from the ubiquity of the sweet potato, a South American native, in the South Pacific—it was already widespread throughout the islands by the time James Cook sailed into the region in 1770. (See National Geographic's South Pacific photos.)

Now it appears the chicken link, at least, may be severed, according to Alan Cooper, director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, a co-author of the study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Researchers sequenced mitochondrial DNA from 22 chicken bones found at Polynesian archaeological sites and 122 feathers from modern chickens living on islands across the South Pacific. They used an enzyme to remove any contamination by modern DNA that may have clouded the results of earlier studies. When the team compared the "cleaned-up" DNA of Polynesian chickens with that of ancient and modern South American chickens, they found the two groups were genetically distinct.

The chicken DNA does not support a connection between the peoples separated by the Pacific, Cooper said. "Indeed, the lack of the Polynesian sequences [of DNA] in modern South American chickens ... would argue against any trading contact as far as chickens go."

Cooper and his colleagues were able to trace the origins of Polynesian chickens back in time and across the Pacific, following the lines of what must rank as one of the boldest, most romantic, and least understood human migrations of all time—the peopling of the tropical islands of the South Seas.

"We can show [from chicken DNA] that the trail heads back into the Philippines," Cooper said. "We're currently working on tracing it farther northward from there. However, we're following a proxy, rather than the actual humans themselves."

Colonizing the South Pacific

The peopling of the South Pacific happened in two stages, the first of which took place more than 3,000 years ago when mysterious seafarers known as the Lapita set off from Papua New Guinea's Bismarck Archipelago into the great blue void of the Pacific. Within a startlingly few generations they managed to find and colonize hundreds of hidden tropical paradises: Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, New Caledonia.

They sailed as pioneers, not explorers, bringing their families and everything they might need to build new homes on the lands they clearly expected to find: flints for toolmaking, pottery, and foodstuffs—including their chickens.

A second, much later phase, beginning around the year A.D. 800, saw them expand into the vastness of the eastern Pacific—to Tahiti, Bora Bora, the Marquesas, Easter Island, and Hawaii. Precisely how these people accomplished such astonishing voyages, and why they attempted them, remains an intriguing mystery, for they left behind no writings and very few artifacts. (Read "Beyond the Blue Horizon" in National Geographic magazine.)

With so few clues to work from—not a single example of an early Polynesian voyaging canoe survives today—archaeologists have been forced to tease out the story of this great migration from the evidence of scattered bones and pottery shards on far-flung islands, and strands of DNA from the plants and livestock the South Seas pioneers brought with them and whose descendants live on today.

Using these bits and pieces, archaeologists have been able to put together a rough time line of the Polynesians' eastward expansion across the Pacific, and the legendary bit of southerly backtracking that led them to discover New Zealand around the year A.D. 1300. But one of the great questions remains: Did they make it all the way across the Pacific to the coast of South America? Did they beat Columbus to the New World? It is a matter of heated debate among South Pacific scholars and one unlikely to be put to rest by the latest findings on chicken DNA.

David Burley, an archaeologist at Simon Fraser University in Canada who has been working in the South Pacific for more than 25 years, has no doubt the Polynesians reached the New World, whatever the evidence from chicken DNA. "The evidence for Polynesian contact with the New World prior to Columbus is substantial," he said. "We have the sweet potato, the bottle gourd, all this New World stuff that has been firmly documented as being out here pre-Columbian. If the Polynesians could find Easter Island, which is just this tiny speck, don't you think they could have found an entire continent?"

Bones of Contention

The idea that Polynesians might have introduced the chicken to South America and thus left behind evidence of their seagoing feat is a fairly new one. For many years, scholars assumed that early European explorers from Portugal and Spain brought the birds to South America, along with horses, pigs, and cattle.

A 2007 study, however, announced the discovery of chicken bones found at an archaeological site near Santiago, Chile, that yielded radiocarbon dates between 1321 and 1407—long before the arrival of Europeans. The early dates, the location along the Pacific coast, and the presence in the bones of what appeared to have been a unique genetic mutation common to Polynesian chickens raised the tantalizing prospect that the meaty birds may have been introduced by South Pacific seafarers.

"It is the most likely explanation," said Alice Storey, an archaeologist with the consulting firm Archer CRM, who led the 2007 study in Chile. "I have investigated many other potential routes of introduction, and none of them are as likely as a Polynesian introduction."

Within a year, though, those results were called into question by other researchers. A subsequent analysis by Cooper and his colleagues of the DNA from the Chilean finds challenged the dates and suggested that the genetic mutation originally thought to have come from Polynesian forebears was in fact a fairly common mutation found in chickens throughout the world. That study formed the basis of the most recent research into the DNA of Polynesian chickens that appeared this week.

For her part, Storey stands by the pre-Columbian dates she and her team obtained for the chicken bones in Chile. She argues that the DNA results in the study released this week are far from conclusive.

"Indeed, the bulk of their research focuses on modern DNA," she said.  "Using modern DNA to understand what people were doing in the past is like sampling a group of commuters at a London Tube station at rush hour. The DNA you get is unlikely to provide much useful information on the pre-Roman population of London."

As humans moved around the world, they brought chickens along with them. So modern chicken populations aren't necessarily representative of past populations, Storey said. "We know from his journals [that] Cook moved chickens all over the Pacific, as did other Europeans, so DNA from chickens living on Pacific islands today has little to tell us about what people were doing in Polynesia, the Pacific, and in Southeast Asia before A.D. 1600."

The new research appears to have laid these old bones to rest, but questions remain. One thing is certain: If the dates of the 2007 study are correct and there were indeed chickens in pre-Columbian South America, they had to come from somewhere. There is also the matter of the sweet potato, a definite South American native, which had spread throughout the Pacific by the time Europeans arrived on the scene.

"The sweet potato is a good question," conceded Cooper. "The bottle gourd was recently shown to have probably crossed to South America by marine currents, not human trade, as previously assumed, so I also wonder about the potato's ability to be dispersed in that fashion."

If the presence of pre-Columbian chickens is a good indicator that Polynesians succeeded in crossing the Pacific, the absence of one of their old shipmates—Rattus exulans, the Pacific rat—makes an equally compelling case against it. The Pacific rat is known to have traveled everywhere with their Polynesian hosts, and wherever they landed they invariably established thriving local rat populations that live on to this day. There are no Pacific rats in South America.

If A.I. knows nothing that isn't on Wikipedia, there are factors its not going to get considered.

Edited January 23, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Zosimus]

6 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

In the Book of Mormon, Jesus uses an analogy about chickens, "Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you." (3 Nephi 10:4)

The problem was there were no chickens in the Americas, so the Nephites shouldn't know what he is talking about.

Then, 10 years ago, the bones of pre-Columbian Polynesian Chickens are discovered in Chili, and chickens disappear from the anachronism list.

If A.I. knows nothing that isn't on Wikipedia, there are factors its not going to get considered.

Ah right. But again, this doesn't seem to be strong evidence for the American geographies. Jews were absolutely raising domesticated chickens in South/Southeast Asia between 600 BC and 420 AD. There's no doubt about it. The evidence for Jews with chickens is not so strong in America. But let's ask ChatGPT:

Zosimus: The book mentions the people described had chickens. Considering the distribution of the chicken between 600 BC and 400 AD please rank the following geographies on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being low convergence with the text and 10 being high convergence with the text:

• Isthmus of Tehuantepec
• Isthmus of Darien
• Isthmus of Kra
• Niagara Peninsula
• Baja Peninsula
• Adam's Bridge

GPT-4: To evaluate the convergence of each mentioned geography with the historical presence of chickens between 600 BC and 400 AD, we need to consider the known historical distribution of chickens during this period. Chickens, originally domesticated in Southeast Asia, gradually spread to other parts of the world, including the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. However, their presence in the Americas pre-Columbus is highly debated and not supported by strong evidence. With this context, let's rank the geographies:

Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Mexico): This region, part of the Americas, would not have had chickens as per the known historical record before the arrival of Europeans. So, its convergence with the text mentioning chickens is low. Rank: 1

Isthmus of Darien (Panama): Similarly, located in the Americas, this area also would not have had chickens before European contact. Rank: 1

Isthmus of Kra (Thailand): Situated in Southeast Asia, this region is close to the original domestication centers of chickens. It is highly likely that chickens were present here between 600 BC and 400 AD. Rank: 10

Niagara Peninsula (Canada): Being in North America, it would not have had chickens prior to the arrival of Europeans. Rank: 1

Baja Peninsula (Mexico): Also part of the Americas, this region would similarly not have had chickens before European contact. Rank: 1

Adam's Bridge (between India and Sri Lanka): Given its proximity to early chicken domestication areas and the known spread of chickens to the Indian subcontinent, it is likely that chickens were present in this region during the specified period. Rank: 9

These rankings are based on the known historical distribution of chickens and the geographical context of each region.

Zosimus: Note that there is some data supporting the presence of chickens in the Americas before Columbus. Here's an article with some details: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/140318-polynesian-chickens-pacific-migration-america-science

GPT-4: Based on a quick search, here's what I discovered.

Based on the information from the sources accessed, there is evidence suggesting that Polynesians may have brought chickens to the Americas before Columbus. A study published in 2007, "Radiocarbon and DNA Evidence for a Pre-Columbian Introduction of Polynesian Chickens to Chile," supports this hypothesis. However, this claim is subject to debate, as another source suggests that an analysis of ancient chicken DNA from islands in the Pacific indicates that Polynesians probably did not reach South America.

Therefore, while there is some evidence supporting the pre-Columbian presence of chickens in the Americas, this topic remains contentious and is not conclusively resolved in the academic community. This uncertainty should be taken into account when considering the historical accuracy of chickens being in the Americas before Columbus.

Zosimus: Please re-rank the geographies, and do consider the arguments and data for chickens in the Americas

GPT-4: 

Given the updated information and considering the arguments and data for the presence of chickens in the Americas before Columbus, we can reassess the rankings of the proposed geographies. The rankings, on a scale of 1 to 10, are based on the convergence of each location with the historical presence of chickens between 600 BC and 400 AD, along with the geographical features described in the book I am analyzing:

Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Mexico): Considering the possibility of pre-Columbian chickens in the Americas, the ranking for this region could be slightly higher. However, the geographical features of this isthmus need to be compared with those described in the book for a more accurate assessment. Rank: 3

Isthmus of Darien (Panama): Similar to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the potential pre-Columbian presence of chickens could raise its ranking. Again, geographical compatibility with the book's description is crucial for a precise match. Rank: 3

Isthmus of Kra (Thailand): Located in Southeast Asia, close to the original domestication centers of chickens, this region remains highly likely to have had chickens during the specified period. Rank: 10

Niagara Peninsula (Canada): Despite the potential for pre-Columbian chickens in the Americas, the Niagara Peninsula may not closely match the geographical features described in the book. Rank: 2

Baja Peninsula (Mexico): Similar to other American locations, the possible presence of pre-Columbian chickens slightly raises its ranking, but geographical features need to be considered for a definitive assessment. Rank: 2

Adam's Bridge (between India and Sri Lanka): Given its proximity to early chicken domestication areas and the known spread of chickens to the Indian subcontinent, it is likely that chickens were present in this region during the specified period. Rank: 9

These rankings incorporate the possibility of pre-Columbian chickens in the Americas, but they primarily hinge on the match between the geographical features of each location and those described in the book I am analyzing. The presence of chickens is one aspect, but the overall geographical, cultural, and technological context from 2500 BC to 420 AD, as detailed in my knowledge sources, is also critical for accurate analysis.

Edited January 23, 2024 by Zosimus

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Zosimus: Note that there is some data supporting the presence of chickens in the Americas before Columbus. Here's an article with some details: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/140318-polynesian-chickens-pacific-migration-america-science

GPT-4: Based on a quick search, here's what I discovered.

Based on the information from the sources accessed, there is evidence suggesting that Polynesians may have brought chickens to the Americas before Columbus. A study published in 2007, "Radiocarbon and DNA Evidence for a Pre-Columbian Introduction of Polynesian Chickens to Chile," supports this hypothesis. However, this claim is subject to debate, as another source suggests that an analysis of ancient chicken DNA from islands in the Pacific indicates that Polynesians probably did not reach South America.

Therefore, while there is some evidence supporting the pre-Columbian presence of chickens in the Americas, this topic remains contentious and is not conclusively resolved in the academic community. This uncertainty should be taken into account when considering the historical accuracy of chickens being in the Americas before Columbus.

Wow, that's a pretty poor reading of the sources.  Both sources state that there were chickens pre-Columbian.  They only disagree on how those chickens came to be.  Why did GTP-4 decide that the presence of chickens in pre-Columbian America was "contentious" when both sources agree that there were chickens pre-Columbian?

[smac97]

Not sure if anyone has posted or referenced this: 

ChatGPT is not quite ready for primetime, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

On 12/24/2023 at 8:03 PM, Zosimus said:

If you remember the story of Vincenzo Di Francesca, the Italian man who discovered a coverless Book of Mormon in a trash barrel on a street in New York City. The book had no introduction and no descriptions of its origins. Since Vincenzo had no clue where the Book of Mormon events took place, he wasn't bothered by the so-called anachronisms in the book. Anachronisms in the book only appear when we force a setting. For example, domesticated elephants are not anachronistic in 2500 BC, but they are anachronistic to Mexico in 2500 BC. Judean migrants fleeing Oman by boat are not anachronistic in 600 BC (see recent ancient DNA papers on Meditarranean DNA in Pattanam, India) but Judeans are seemingly anachronistic to 600 BC New York. The Book of Mormon mentions silk. Silk and domesticated silkworms are not anachronistic to the Book of Mormon time period, but they are anachronistic to the Americas during the Book of Mormon time period. Steel swords are not anachronistic to Nephi's timeline, but they are anachronistic to Nephi's timeline if we demand Nephi was forging his swords in Guatemala in the 6th century BC.

I'd like to know if there truly are anachronisms in the text, because to me it seems we create these anachronisms by forcing the text to have happened in a specific location. The text itself never claims a specific location. The methodology is to describe the contents of the book to AI, without all the external commentary and assumptions about its origins. If there happens to be convergence between the text and the real world, anywhere, a model can be constructed. 

It’s also interesting that after Vincenzo discovered where the book supposedly took place, his testimony of it was so secure that that knowledge caused zero angst for him.

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Wow, that's a pretty poor reading of the sources.  Both sources state that there were chickens pre-Columbian.  They only disagree on how those chickens came to be.  Why did GTP-4 decide that the presence of chickens in pre-Columbian America was "contentious" when both sources agree that there were chickens pre-Columbian?

Its contentious because subsequent research challenged the dating of the chicken bones, and the maternal DNA seems to suggest an European origin of South American chickens:

Indo-European and Asian origins for Chilean and Pacific chickens revealed by mtDNA

"European chickens were introduced into the American continents by the Spanish after their arrival in the 15th century. However, there is ongoing debate as to the presence of pre-Columbian chickens among Amerindians in South America, particularly in relation to Chilean breeds such as the Araucana and Passion Fowl. To understand the origin of these populations, we have generated partial mitochondrial DNA control region sequences from 41 native Chilean specimens and compared them with a previously generated database of ≈1,000 domestic chicken sequences from across the world as well as published Chilean and Polynesian ancient DNA sequences. The modern Chilean sequences cluster closely with haplotypes predominantly distributed among European, Indian subcontinental, and Southeast Asian chickens, consistent with a European genetic origin. A published, apparently pre-Columbian, Chilean specimen and six pre-European Polynesian specimens also cluster with the same European/Indian subcontinental/Southeast Asian sequences, providing no support for a Polynesian introduction of chickens to South America. In contrast, sequences from two archaeological sites on Easter Island group with an uncommon haplogroup from Indonesia, Japan, and China and may represent a genetic signature of an early Polynesian dispersal. Modeling of the potential marine carbon contribution to the Chilean archaeological specimen casts further doubt on claims for pre-Columbian chickens, and definitive proof will require further analyses of ancient DNA sequences and radiocarbon and stable isotope data from archaeological excavations within both Chile and Polynesia."

There's no consensus and more data is required. Until then, chickens in the Americas before Columbus is still up for debate.

Even if there were chickens in the Americas before Columbus, the hypothesis is that they originated in Southeast Asia and came over with Polynesians sometime after the events described in the book.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Its contentious because subsequent research challenged the dating of the chicken bones, and the maternal DNA seems to suggest an European origin of South American chickens:

Indo-European and Asian origins for Chilean and Pacific chickens revealed by mtDNA

"European chickens were introduced into the American continents by the Spanish after their arrival in the 15th century. However, there is ongoing debate as to the presence of pre-Columbian chickens among Amerindians in South America, particularly in relation to Chilean breeds such as the Araucana and Passion Fowl. To understand the origin of these populations, we have generated partial mitochondrial DNA control region sequences from 41 native Chilean specimens and compared them with a previously generated database of ≈1,000 domestic chicken sequences from across the world as well as published Chilean and Polynesian ancient DNA sequences. The modern Chilean sequences cluster closely with haplotypes predominantly distributed among European, Indian subcontinental, and Southeast Asian chickens, consistent with a European genetic origin. A published, apparently pre-Columbian, Chilean specimen and six pre-European Polynesian specimens also cluster with the same European/Indian subcontinental/Southeast Asian sequences, providing no support for a Polynesian introduction of chickens to South America. In contrast, sequences from two archaeological sites on Easter Island group with an uncommon haplogroup from Indonesia, Japan, and China and may represent a genetic signature of an early Polynesian dispersal. Modeling of the potential marine carbon contribution to the Chilean archaeological specimen casts further doubt on claims for pre-Columbian chickens, and definitive proof will require further analyses of ancient DNA sequences and radiocarbon and stable isotope data from archaeological excavations within both Chile and Polynesia."

There's no consensus and more data is required. Until then, chickens in the Americas before Columbus is still up for debate.

Even if there were chickens in the Americas before Columbus, the hypothesis is that they originated in Southeast Asia and came over with Polynesians sometime after the events described in the book.

I don't see GPT-4 mentioning that source.  GPT-4 seems to just be focusing on the fact that Polynesian chickens are probably not the source of the chicken bones found.  Any way to ask why it thinks it is contentious?  Based on what it referred to, I wouldn't think a contention is there. Maybe it read the original study but it might not have as well.

[Zosimus]

15 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't see GPT-4 mentioning that source.  GPT-4 seems to just be focusing on the fact that Polynesian chickens are probably not the source of the chicken bones found.  Any way to ask why it thinks it is contentious?  Based on what it referred to, I wouldn't think a contention is there. Maybe it read the original study but it might not have as well.

GPT-4: 
To accurately rank the geographic regions based on the presence and distribution of chickens between 600 BC and 400 AD, we need to consider the historical spread of domestic chickens during this period. Chickens, primarily descended from the wild red junglefowl of Southeast Asia, spread through various trade routes and cultural exchanges across different regions.

Southeast Asia: This region is the origin of the domestic chicken. By 600 BC, chickens were already domesticated and widespread in Southeast Asia. Rank: 10

South Asia (India): Chickens were present in India from a very early period, having spread from their Southeast Asian origins. By 600 BC, they were likely well-integrated into South Asian societies. Rank: 9

East Asia (China): Chickens were known in China by 600 BC, having spread from Southeast Asia. They were used for both meat and cockfighting. Rank: 9

Middle East: Chickens were known in the Middle East by the first millennium BC, spread through trade routes. Their presence in places like Persia and later in Islamic cultures is well-documented. Rank: 8

Mediterranean (including Ancient Greece and Rome): Chickens were present in the Mediterranean world, including in Greek and Roman societies, by 600 BC. They were used for both culinary and ritual purposes. Rank: 8

Sub-Saharan Africa: The spread of chickens to Sub-Saharan Africa is less clear but they were likely introduced through North Africa and the Middle East. By 400 AD, there is evidence of their presence in various regions of Africa. Rank: 7

Northern Europe: Chickens were known in Northern Europe but were less common compared to the Mediterranean region. Their spread here was likely through Roman and other Mediterranean influences. Rank: 6

Americas: Chickens were not present in the Americas until after the Columbian Exchange, which began in the late 15th century AD. Rank: 1

Oceania (excluding Papua New Guinea): Chickens were introduced to Oceania by Austronesian sailors. However, their spread to regions outside of the Austronesian settlement areas (like Polynesia) likely occurred much later than 400 AD. Rank: 2

Arctic and Antarctic Regions: These regions are not suitable for chicken farming due to the extreme climate, and there is no evidence of chickens being present here during the specified period. Rank: 1

This ranking is based on the historical presence and spread of chickens up to 400 AD, considering the geographic regions mentioned. It's important to note that the presence of chickens in certain areas could also be influenced by trade routes and cultural exchanges not directly related to the geographic origin of the chickens.

Zosimus: 
Earlier you mentioned the topic of chickens in America before Columbus was contentious. could you expand on your reasons for stating that this research is highly debated?

GPT-4: 
The topic of chickens in the Americas before Columbus is contentious due to varying interpretations of archaeological and genetic evidence, leading to differing conclusions among scholars.

Archaeological Evidence: The discovery of chicken bones in South America, particularly in Chile, suggested a pre-Columbian introduction of chickens. Proponents of this theory argue that these chickens could have been brought by Polynesians who reached the Americas before Columbus.

Genetic Analysis: Initial genetic analyses of these chicken bones seemed to support the theory of Polynesian contact. These studies found similarities between the DNA of chickens in the Americas and those from Polynesia, suggesting a pre-Columbian introduction.

Controversy and Contradictory Findings: However, subsequent research challenged these findings. Further genetic studies indicated that the earlier analyses might have been flawed, possibly due to contamination of samples or misinterpretation of genetic data. These later studies suggest that the chickens in the Americas were more closely related to European breeds, brought by the Spanish and Portuguese after Columbus.

Debate Among Historians and Archaeologists: The debate extends beyond the genetic evidence. Historians and archaeologists argue about the likelihood of Polynesian contact with the Americas, with some scholars considering it plausible given the long-distance seafaring capabilities of Polynesians, while others find it unlikely due to a lack of consistent evidence across multiple fields.

Lack of Consensus: As of my last update, there is no consensus among researchers. The debate continues due to the complexities of interpreting archaeological and genetic data, and the significant implications such a discovery would have on our understanding of pre-Columbian history.

Broader Implications: This debate is part of a larger discussion about the interactions between different peoples before the well-documented European explorations. It touches on issues of migration, trade, and cultural exchange, making it a significant and sensitive topic in historical studies.

Based on this information, a cautious approach would be to consider the Americas with moderate convergence due to the potential, yet contested, evidence of pre-Columbian chickens. Other regions, particularly Southeast Asia and surrounding areas where chickens were originally domesticated, remain highly convergent due to the well-documented presence of chickens in these regions before 600 BC.

Zosimus:
OK, but if chicken bones date to a time before Columbus, why is this subject contentious? The evidence is there and it seems conclusive that chickens were present in the Americas before Columbus, why is there continued debate on this matter?

GPT-4: 
The debate over the presence of chickens in the Americas before Columbus is contentious due to several factors:

Contradictory Archaeological Evidence: The discovery of pre-Columbian chicken bones in South America (specifically in Chile) suggested that chickens were introduced to the Americas from Polynesia before Columbus' arrival. However, other archaeological evidence has not consistently supported this theory, leading to questions about the validity and interpretation of these findings.

Radiocarbon Dating Challenges: Dating methods, such as radiocarbon dating, can sometimes yield varying results based on the sample's condition, contamination, and the methodology used. Discrepancies in dating results can lead to debates among researchers regarding the accuracy of the timelines established for the introduction of chickens to the Americas.

Genetic Analysis: Genetic studies of these pre-Columbian chickens have sometimes shown links to Polynesian chicken breeds, suggesting pre-Columbian trans-Pacific contact. However, other genetic studies have not found such clear connections, adding to the controversy.

Historical Records and Native Traditions: There is a lack of clear historical records or native traditions that unambiguously mention or depict chickens in the Americas prior to Columbus. This absence of corroborating evidence from indigenous sources adds to the skepticism.

Potential for European Influence: Some researchers argue that the presence of chickens could be due to early, undocumented European contact before Columbus. This theory adds another layer of complexity to the debate.

Methodological Criticisms: Some scholars criticize the methodologies used in studies claiming pre-Columbian chicken presence, arguing that these studies might have overlooked potential sources of error or bias.

Broader Implications: The question of chickens in pre-Columbian Americas touches on larger debates about the extent and nature of contacts between the peoples of Polynesia and the Americas. This has broader implications for understanding global prehistoric human migration and interaction, making the topic highly significant and sensitive.

In summary, while there is some evidence suggesting the presence of chickens in the Americas before Columbus, it is contested due to inconsistencies in archaeological, genetic, and historical data, as well as the broader implications such findings have on our understanding of prehistoric global human interactions.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Zosimus said:

GPT-4: 
To accurately rank the geographic regions based on the presence and distribution of chickens between 600 BC and 400 AD, we need to consider the historical spread of domestic chickens during this period. Chickens, primarily descended from the wild red junglefowl of Southeast Asia, spread through various trade routes and cultural exchanges across different regions.

Southeast Asia: This region is the origin of the domestic chicken. By 600 BC, chickens were already domesticated and widespread in Southeast Asia. Rank: 10

South Asia (India): Chickens were present in India from a very early period, having spread from their Southeast Asian origins. By 600 BC, they were likely well-integrated into South Asian societies. Rank: 9

East Asia (China): Chickens were known in China by 600 BC, having spread from Southeast Asia. They were used for both meat and cockfighting. Rank: 9

Middle East: Chickens were known in the Middle East by the first millennium BC, spread through trade routes. Their presence in places like Persia and later in Islamic cultures is well-documented. Rank: 8

Mediterranean (including Ancient Greece and Rome): Chickens were present in the Mediterranean world, including in Greek and Roman societies, by 600 BC. They were used for both culinary and ritual purposes. Rank: 8

Sub-Saharan Africa: The spread of chickens to Sub-Saharan Africa is less clear but they were likely introduced through North Africa and the Middle East. By 400 AD, there is evidence of their presence in various regions of Africa. Rank: 7

Northern Europe: Chickens were known in Northern Europe but were less common compared to the Mediterranean region. Their spread here was likely through Roman and other Mediterranean influences. Rank: 6

Americas: Chickens were not present in the Americas until after the Columbian Exchange, which began in the late 15th century AD. Rank: 1

Oceania (excluding Papua New Guinea): Chickens were introduced to Oceania by Austronesian sailors. However, their spread to regions outside of the Austronesian settlement areas (like Polynesia) likely occurred much later than 400 AD. Rank: 2

Arctic and Antarctic Regions: These regions are not suitable for chicken farming due to the extreme climate, and there is no evidence of chickens being present here during the specified period. Rank: 1

This ranking is based on the historical presence and spread of chickens up to 400 AD, considering the geographic regions mentioned. It's important to note that the presence of chickens in certain areas could also be influenced by trade routes and cultural exchanges not directly related to the geographic origin of the chickens.

Zosimus: 
Earlier you mentioned the topic of chickens in America before Columbus was contentious. could you expand on your reasons for stating that this research is highly debated?

GPT-4: 
The topic of chickens in the Americas before Columbus is contentious due to varying interpretations of archaeological and genetic evidence, leading to differing conclusions among scholars.

Archaeological Evidence: The discovery of chicken bones in South America, particularly in Chile, suggested a pre-Columbian introduction of chickens. Proponents of this theory argue that these chickens could have been brought by Polynesians who reached the Americas before Columbus.

Genetic Analysis: Initial genetic analyses of these chicken bones seemed to support the theory of Polynesian contact. These studies found similarities between the DNA of chickens in the Americas and those from Polynesia, suggesting a pre-Columbian introduction.

Controversy and Contradictory Findings: However, subsequent research challenged these findings. Further genetic studies indicated that the earlier analyses might have been flawed, possibly due to contamination of samples or misinterpretation of genetic data. These later studies suggest that the chickens in the Americas were more closely related to European breeds, brought by the Spanish and Portuguese after Columbus.

Debate Among Historians and Archaeologists: The debate extends beyond the genetic evidence. Historians and archaeologists argue about the likelihood of Polynesian contact with the Americas, with some scholars considering it plausible given the long-distance seafaring capabilities of Polynesians, while others find it unlikely due to a lack of consistent evidence across multiple fields.

Lack of Consensus: As of my last update, there is no consensus among researchers. The debate continues due to the complexities of interpreting archaeological and genetic data, and the significant implications such a discovery would have on our understanding of pre-Columbian history.

Broader Implications: This debate is part of a larger discussion about the interactions between different peoples before the well-documented European explorations. It touches on issues of migration, trade, and cultural exchange, making it a significant and sensitive topic in historical studies.

Based on this information, a cautious approach would be to consider the Americas with moderate convergence due to the potential, yet contested, evidence of pre-Columbian chickens. Other regions, particularly Southeast Asia and surrounding areas where chickens were originally domesticated, remain highly convergent due to the well-documented presence of chickens in these regions before 600 BC.

Zosimus:
OK, but if chicken bones date to a time before Columbus, why is this subject contentious? The evidence is there and it seems conclusive that chickens were present in the Americas before Columbus, why is there continued debate on this matter?

GPT-4: 
The debate over the presence of chickens in the Americas before Columbus is contentious due to several factors:

Contradictory Archaeological Evidence: The discovery of pre-Columbian chicken bones in South America (specifically in Chile) suggested that chickens were introduced to the Americas from Polynesia before Columbus' arrival. However, other archaeological evidence has not consistently supported this theory, leading to questions about the validity and interpretation of these findings.

Radiocarbon Dating Challenges: Dating methods, such as radiocarbon dating, can sometimes yield varying results based on the sample's condition, contamination, and the methodology used. Discrepancies in dating results can lead to debates among researchers regarding the accuracy of the timelines established for the introduction of chickens to the Americas.

Genetic Analysis: Genetic studies of these pre-Columbian chickens have sometimes shown links to Polynesian chicken breeds, suggesting pre-Columbian trans-Pacific contact. However, other genetic studies have not found such clear connections, adding to the controversy.

Historical Records and Native Traditions: There is a lack of clear historical records or native traditions that unambiguously mention or depict chickens in the Americas prior to Columbus. This absence of corroborating evidence from indigenous sources adds to the skepticism.

Potential for European Influence: Some researchers argue that the presence of chickens could be due to early, undocumented European contact before Columbus. This theory adds another layer of complexity to the debate.

Methodological Criticisms: Some scholars criticize the methodologies used in studies claiming pre-Columbian chicken presence, arguing that these studies might have overlooked potential sources of error or bias.

Broader Implications: The question of chickens in pre-Columbian Americas touches on larger debates about the extent and nature of contacts between the peoples of Polynesia and the Americas. This has broader implications for understanding global prehistoric human migration and interaction, making the topic highly significant and sensitive.

In summary, while there is some evidence suggesting the presence of chickens in the Americas before Columbus, it is contested due to inconsistencies in archaeological, genetic, and historical data, as well as the broader implications such findings have on our understanding of prehistoric global human interactions.

Is GPT-4 capable of citing sources now?  The "Potential for European Influence" and "Historical Records and Native Traditions" are interesting factors that I'd love to see what source(s) it has for them.  Can it also point out what are the "potential sources of error or bias"?  I'm curious if it will talk about the marine carbon contribution or something other than the DNA analysis (since that doesn't affect the dating of the bones)

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Is GPT-4 capable of citing sources now?  The "Potential for European Influence" and "Historical Records and Native Traditions" are interesting factors that I'd love to see what source(s) it has for them.  Can it also point out what are the "potential sources of error or bias"?  I'm curious if it will talk about the marine carbon contribution or something other than the DNA analysis (since that doesn't affect the dating of the bones)

It seems it was referring to Norse and Polynesian contact as the only hypotheses with supporting archeological or genetic evidence. Other fringe theories are included and identified as controversial or speculative.

Zosimus:
You mentioned "Potential for European Influence", what are the theories for potential European contact before Columbus? and could you link me to some academic sources?

GPT-4:
The theories surrounding potential European contact with the Americas before Christopher Columbus are varied and intriguing. While these theories fall outside the specific timeframe and geographical focus of my specialized knowledge in history from 600 BC to 420 AD, I can provide a brief overview:

Norse/Viking Exploration: The most widely accepted and documented pre-Columbian European contact is that of the Norse or Vikings. Around the year 1000 AD, Norse explorers led by Leif Erikson are believed to have reached parts of North America, notably areas that are now part of Canada. The Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, in Newfoundland, Canada, is evidence of this early contact.

Saint Brendan's Voyage: An Irish legend dating back to the 9th century tells of Saint Brendan the Navigator, who supposedly sailed the Atlantic and possibly reached the Americas in the 6th century. This is more myth than history, with no concrete archaeological evidence to support the claim.

Welsh Prince Madoc: A legend dating back to the 12th century claims that a Welsh prince named Madoc, disillusioned by civil war in his homeland, sailed west and possibly reached America in the 12th century. This theory lacks credible evidence and is considered a myth.

The Knights Templar: Some theories suggest that the Knights Templar, a medieval Christian military order, may have reached the Americas before Columbus, possibly to hide treasures or as part of their maritime activities. This theory is highly speculative and not supported by historical evidence.

Polynesian Contact: While not European, it's worth noting the theory of Polynesian contact with South America. Some studies suggest that Polynesians might have reached South America and interacted with native peoples before Columbus. Genetic studies indicate contact between Polynesian and South American populations. A study published in "Nature" in 2020 found genetic admixture in populations on Mangareva, Marquesas, and Easter Island with indigenous South Americans, particularly the Zenú people from Colombia. The study suggests a single ancient contact event, likely around 1150-1230 CE.

Other Speculative Theories: Various other theories, often based on speculative or fringe interpretations of historical or archaeological evidence, suggest pre-Columbian contact between Europe and the Americas. These include claims of ancient Phoenicians, Romans, or even earlier civilizations having reached the New World. These theories generally lack substantial evidence and are not widely accepted in the academic community.

It's important to note that, except for the Norse exploration, most of these theories lack robust archaeological or historical evidence and are considered speculative or controversial among mainstream historians and archaeologists. The Norse settlement in Newfoundland is the only pre-Columbian European presence in the Americas that is widely accepted and supported by concrete archaeological evidence.

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

 I'm curious if it will talk about the marine carbon contribution or something other than the DNA analysis (since that doesn't affect the dating of the bones)

Zosimus:
You mentioned the "potential sources of error or bias" in the research around chicken bones that were dated to the period before Columbus. could you expand on what these sources of error or bias are? provide more information about marine carbon contribution

GPT-4:
In archaeological studies, such as those involving the dating of chicken bones to periods before Columbus, various potential sources of error or bias can affect the accuracy of the findings. One significant factor in such studies is the "marine reservoir effect," which relates to the contribution of marine carbon to the diet of the organisms being studied.

Here's an overview of how this could introduce error or bias:

Marine Reservoir Effect: This phenomenon occurs because the carbon in marine environments can have a different radiocarbon age compared to terrestrial environments. Marine organisms, including fish, absorb carbon from dissolved carbonates, which are often "older" in terms of radiocarbon dating. If animals or humans consume a significant amount of marine food, their tissues (including bones) can exhibit this older carbon signature.

Impact on Radiocarbon Dating: When dating organic material through radiocarbon dating, the presence of marine-derived carbon can lead to inaccuracies. If the diet of the organism (like chickens in this case) included a substantial amount of marine food, their bones might appear older than they actually are. This is because the marine carbon they ingested and incorporated into their tissues has a different radiocarbon age.

Accounting for the Marine Reservoir Effect: Researchers must account for this effect, especially in coastal regions where marine diets are prevalent. Failure to do so can lead to a misinterpretation of the age of the samples. Adjusting radiocarbon dates to account for the marine reservoir effect is crucial for achieving accurate results.

Relevance to Pre-Columbian Contexts: In studies aiming to establish the presence of certain animals (like chickens) in the Americas before Columbus, the marine reservoir effect can be particularly relevant. If the animals had a diet with a significant marine component, it could falsely suggest an older presence unless corrections are applied.

Other Potential Errors and Biases: Beyond the marine reservoir effect, other factors like contamination of samples, misidentification of species (especially if only small bone fragments are available), and the context of where and how the samples were found (which can provide clues to their true age) are also crucial in ensuring the accuracy of archaeological conclusions.

In summary, the marine reservoir effect is a critical consideration in the radiocarbon dating of bones, particularly for species with potential marine dietary inputs. Accurate accounting for this effect is essential to avoid errors in dating and to ensure that conclusions drawn from such studies, like the timing of the arrival of certain species in new environments, are reliable.

[Zosimus]

On 1/23/2024 at 10:46 PM, bluebell said:

It’s also interesting that after Vincenzo discovered where the book supposedly took place, his testimony of it was so secure that that knowledge caused zero angst for him.

True, but he also passed away in 1966, long before any serious discussions about the limited geographical setting of the text. In his lifetime it was still common to not fret too much about whether or not there were elephants and chickens here or there, or to put much weight into historicity. 50 years ago it was easier to hold to the belief that Hebrews were the principal ancestors of Native Americans. 
 

Things have changed a lot since 1966. I personally know dozens that have left the church because the text doesn’t seem to fit into history. I believe it does, but a shift in perspective is needed. 

Edited January 25, 2024 by Zosimus

[rodheadlee]

On 1/23/2024 at 7:46 AM, bluebell said:

It’s also interesting that after Vincenzo discovered where the book supposedly took place, his testimony of it was so secure that that knowledge caused zero angst for him.

Where did it take place according to Vincenzo? I can't seem to find anything on that in my search on the internet.

His story of his finding the book and the church is very inspiring. 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Where did it take place according to Vincenzo? I can't seem to find anything on that in my search on the internet.

His story of his finding the book and the church is very inspiring. 

As far as I can tell he didn’t spend any time worrying about that.

[The Nehor]

On 1/14/2024 at 8:47 PM, Calm said:

I wonder if that was programmed in or ‘learned’.

Programmed.

[The Nehor]

On 1/23/2024 at 8:36 AM, webbles said:

Wow, that's a pretty poor reading of the sources.  Both sources state that there were chickens pre-Columbian.  They only disagree on how those chickens came to be.  Why did GTP-4 decide that the presence of chickens in pre-Columbian America was "contentious" when both sources agree that there were chickens pre-Columbian?

Because someone on the internet said it was contentious.