Watch National Geographic

[Brad and Vika 129]

I've read the Holy Bible from cover-to-cover probably a dozen or more times. I have admittedly not even read the Book of Mormon a single time cover-to-cover, although I've gone through it, and hell I think I might even have a copy in a box somewhere.

Reading scripture as a purely intellectual exercise, unless your chosen field of study is comparative theology, just doesn't make sense to me. I assume all this mental masturbation (or deep philosophicial thought) happened before you got married. Where on earth would a guy married to a Russian woman find the time for that?

[mox 298]

Reading scripture as a purely intellectual exercise, unless your chosen field of study is comparative theology, just doesn't make sense to me. I assume all this mental masturbation (or deep philosophicial thought) happened before you got married. Where on earth would a guy married to a Russian woman find the time for that?

The Bible reading I was referring to was back when I was a "believer." I've also read the Koran, although that was, as you say, an intellectual exercise. I go through about 2-4 books a week, and my wife goes through at least 1 book a week if it's in Russian, and every other week if it's in English. We spend a lot of time reading at the same time, so I guess you could say we mentally masturbate together. I don't have a lot of interest in reading the Book of Mormon right now, but who knows, the mood may strike me down the road. As I've said, my library is (and reading habits are) somewhat esoteric.

[EddieLovesLiana 1]

Mox, I can tell that you read a lot by the way you write. Your writing is very thorough and you have really proven your points on atheism and religion.

As for government types. In a perfect world where everyone is good, communism is the best type of government. Of course this is impossible because there will always be human greed that corrupts communism. If we were all Vulcans like "Spock" from Star Trek, communism would rule the world perfectly. The biggest mistake Communists did was isolate itself from Capitalists. Maybe when humans evolve, the world will learn to appreciate communism more. In the future be prepared to see the rise of Communism again(Russia and China), but in a more positive way. Stalin was a paranoid ####, he killed everyone he felt was against him, not just Christians who interfered. If Stalin wanted to attack a religion, he would have done it the same way Hitler attacked Jews: make them wear a label(Star of David), put them in concentration camps, and murder them.

All in all, in conclusion. It is HATE, that destroys. HATE can be in politics, religion, or anything. It is HATE that drives extremism and fascism to kill people. Nothing wrong with all religions or governments until it encourages HATE against another type of religion or political view. It is HATE that makes the NICEST people do the DUMBEST things. For example: the USA(Best country in the world I love it) HATED the Soviet Union and Iran so much that they funded Osama Bin Laden to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and funded Saddam Hussein in Iraq against Iran. The USA didn't care who Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein was, all they cared about was they shared the HATE against the Soviet Union and Iran. I am sure there is a saying in every religion to what eventually happened later. I say,"What goes around, comes around."

[eekee 182]

Stalin didn't just kill those who were "against him." He would kill at random, sending letters to local officials telling them to round up 100 "enemies of the state," or else. It was about creating a culture of obedience and control through fear and terror.

[SMR 368]

You're correct that there are scientists who are also believers. Perhaps the most famous modern-day believer/scientist Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome Project until very recently. Fortunately, Dr. Collins, an otherwise pretty damn smart cookie, sets aside his religion when working on science, and sets aside science when he's being religious. It is, in my opinion, a terrible way to have to live your life, but it seems to work for him. (I've seen him in lectures on Youtube defending how he compartmentalizes his faith and scientific research, and it's so cringe-worthy to watch that I can't believe the guy doesn't suffer a mental breakdown at some point.)

But the reason I'm linking science and atheism together so closely is because the two are intertwined so closely. If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you really have only the natural. And the only way to make sense of nature is science. I see the world through Planck's constant and relativity theory in the same way you see the world through golden plates and the Mormon scripture.

It's not a long jump at all, but it *is* "the antithesis of religion." Science shows that the universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago, and that the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago over a period of about 15-20 million years. Both the Bible and the Koran teach that the earth and the universe was created in a day, with the next 5 days being spent creating everything else. So just in the first few pages of 2 most popular religious scriptures is a complete incompatibility with science. If you (as a Christian or Muslim) believe anything else, you're denying the validity of the scriptures.

I made a small mention of it in an earlier post, but I used to be a born-again Christian. I was *seriously* into it. I didn't just talk the talk, I walked the walk. So I actually do know what's involved, and I agree that it's a hard row to hoe. But as time went by, I realized that this so-called "personal relationship" I had with Christ was really just a one-way street. In the meantime, I'd alienated the actual real people in my life, all of my friends and family. All because I believed that some invisible guy who couldn't even be bothered to give me even the slightest evidence that he really existed wanted me to put him above everything else.

Heh. I just mean it's easier to discuss religion with somebody who actually adheres to their chosen religion. Drives me crazy when I challenge some scripture only to be told that this person doesn't really believe that part, or it's just allegory or a parable or something.

Lineage testing is done through mitochondrial DNA sequence (mtDNA), which is the DNA passed on the maternal line. The great thing about the mtDNA sequence is that the mitochondrial genes don't get mixed up like other inherited genes. This makes mtDNA perfect for tracing lineage. If you have a (great x 10) grandmother from Scandanavia, her mtDNA is in your blood and every cell of your body. And so is your (great x 5) grandmother from Asia. So it's a pretty simple matter to determine where a particular sub-group not only comes from, but what other lineages they're a part of. Test their mtDNA, and compare it to other known groups to see what matches. Which is exactly what scientists did. They tested the mtDNA in a large sampling of native Americans (several thousand or more), and then compared it to other samples of mtDNA. What they found is that the vast majority of native Americans share their mtDNA with people across north and South America, Asia and Mongolia. Like every other racial group, Jews also have a very distinct mtDNA line, and there just isn't any overlapping. Scientists can also trace through mtDNA how far apart generations are (it's something to do with genetic markers, I don't really know how), and they determined native Americans and Asians to be about 10-12,000 years apart.

(Not to drag anybody else into this, but I believe Марты is in genetics, so if I've made any mistakes he can lambaste me in public. )

So unless god manipulated the DNA to obscure their lineage (a crazy thing to do, even by god's standards), Joseph Smith was completely wrong. As I said earlier, it's a classic mistake that all religions make when formulating their core beliefs and claims. DNA was unknown in Smith's time. He had no way of knowing that anybody would ever be able to disprove the connection. DNA wasn't even known until the late 1800's (and they really didn't even know what they had then), and we couldn't even identify a person's blood type until the 1940's. The idea that you could even trace a child to a particular mother through anything except physical features was science fiction in his day.

From a genetic standpoint, Jews are actually a very defined group. In fact, they're probably one of the most "defined" populations in human history, mostly due to their historically tight-knit co-mingling. It's why they represent such a small fraction of the population. Before WW2, they numbered about 15 million. It was somewhere between 4-5 million post-WW2. Wikipedia puts them at about 13 million nowadays.

Sure. But again, you can trace all this through mtDNA. Also, the vast majority of native Americans had no contacts with Scandinavians or Europeans until very recently--we're talking not sooner than about the 1700s, and Europeans really didn't have much more than a toe-hold (and population) on the continent until the 1600s. Before that it was mostly the Native Americans on the east coast that had anything to do with non-natives.

Heh, this pretty much sums up my ex-Mormon ex-roommate. As he himself proclaimed, "I believe in God, but I just like to drink, smoke, and #### too much to be in his church."

I've read the Holy Bible from cover-to-cover probably a dozen or more times. I have admittedly not even read the Book of Mormon a single time cover-to-cover, although I've gone through it, and hell I think I might even have a copy in a box somewhere. But as for "truth" and "asking God," well...been there, done that, got the t-shirt, but found the real truth in spite of it.

I don't really want to spend the time putting in the beginning and closing quotes. Just a couple things:

I don't intend to defend other religions on the basis of their truth. I believe they are mislead. On the other hand, I think you underestimate the amount of good they can do.

On the subject of the creation, a literal reading of the Bible leads to the conclusion that the days spoken of are not actual 24 hour periods. The sun and moon are not created until the 4th day, so it's impossible to assume that the first three days were relative to the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun. A couple other things to consider here are the fact that the Book of Genesis is not an actual first hand account of the creation but rather an account of a vision that Moses saw when God showed him the creation. Also, time had a very different meaning before the fall and the amount of time prior to the fall of Adam is not disclosed. Due to the immortality of Adam prior to the fall, literally millions of years could have passed.

On the subject of DNA, I find nothing in any of the articles you supplied or in any that I have been able to find in a cursory search to really show any problem with the Book of Mormon. First, as I said from the beginning, the "Jews" are from the tribe of Judah while the "Lamanites" are from the tribe of Manasseh. Thus, according to the Biblical record, they don't have a close maternal relationship. Joseph (Manasseh's father and Judah's half brother) married an Egyptian. Judah's wife was from Er. There is no reason to expect these women had similar mitochondrial DNA. Manasseh likely also married an Egyptian. In ancient Israel, the tribes lived in relative isolation. In summary, Lehi was not "Jewish" and no one asserts that he was. He was an Israelite.

Moreover, as I also said, and the articles you pointed to indicate, the Book of Mormon does not preclude the possibility that other people came to the Americas before or after the Lamanites. In fact, the Book of Mormon indicates that several groups of people were already in the Americas when Lehi arrived. Further, when attempting to line up Lehi's journey with present day geography, it seems that Lehi traveled east to India and sailed across the Pacific, thus making him an "Asian." In fact, no other members of the tribes of Joseph can be pinpointed in the modern world, so we don't know what their mitochondrial DNA looked like. Present day Asians may well contain DNA from several other tribes of Israel or the tribe of Manasseh, as these tribes were scattered into Asia during the conquest of the Northern and Southern kingdoms.

[visaveteran 1]

Since there's been a lot of talk about John Smith and his alleged bad deeds as well as Christians in general, we ought to talk about the atheists biggest embarrassment and goofball...Madalyn Murray. She was the one who ended school prayer and famously called for open and free sexuality (although who would want her, she was butt ugly). She described herself as a "sexual libertarian" and stated that children in sixth grade should be given sex education and "be allowed to go at it without supervision or restriction -- in their parents' bedroom, on the grass in a park", and so forth.^[/url] She felt that relationships between people, emotional or sexual, were not open to any kind of supervision by other people and especially not by the government. She loved attacking and insulting Christians. She formed American Atheists, a dubious organization with a checkered history around money shenanigans. She was touted as America's most hated woman. Ultimately she was murdered by one of her own.

This is how the atheist's First Lady operated at a key time in atheist history. No wonder decent people are often turned off by atheists. Look at their key leader from the 1960s to the 1980s.

[mox 298]

On the subject of the creation, a literal reading of the Bible leads to the conclusion that the days spoken of are not actual 24 hour periods. The sun and moon are not created until the 4th day, so it's impossible to assume that the first three days were relative to the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun. A couple other things to consider here are the fact that the Book of Genesis is not an actual first hand account of the creation but rather an account of a vision that Moses saw when God showed him the creation. Also, time had a very different meaning before the fall and the amount of time prior to the fall of Adam is not disclosed. Due to the immortality of Adam prior to the fall, literally millions of years could have passed.

See, you're doing what millions of Christians do all over the world. You're rationalizing, trying to make scripture written a couple millenia ago fit the world as we know it to be today. The original Hebrew text is VERY clear that these are to be interpreted as literal days. The Hebrew word for day has a single, specific meaning. Biblical scholars are very adamant that if the original writer meant anything else, he'd have chosen a different word. The two concepts are so different in the original language, that I think it's the equivalent of arguing that "when he said tomato, he really meant swamp monster."

So either the world was created in a single 24-hour period, or it was not. The scriptures give you no leeway. 2 Peter 20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

You rejected that the golden tablets in the Book of Mormon are allegorical because the scripture makes no mention that they are anything but physical. This is the same thing. And the reason it's such a big deal is because it underscores the fact that science and belief cannot be reconciled. If you believe that the Genesis isn't literally the truth, then you're also rejecting Jesus' admonition in 2 Peter 20-21. And the next thing you know, the whole thing starts to unravel.

On the subject of DNA, I find nothing in any of the articles you supplied or in any that I have been able to find in a cursory search to really show any problem with the Book of Mormon. First, as I said from the beginning, the "Jews" are from the tribe of Judah while the "Lamanites" are from the tribe of Manasseh. Thus, according to the Biblical record, they don't have a close maternal relationship. Joseph (Manasseh's father and Judah's half brother) married an Egyptian. Judah's wife was from Er. There is no reason to expect these women had similar mitochondrial DNA. Manasseh likely also married an Egyptian. In ancient Israel, the tribes lived in relative isolation. In summary, Lehi was not "Jewish" and no one asserts that he was. He was an Israelite.

It's really up to you to decide how to interpret your faith, but science isn't a matter of interpretation. The DNA conclusively shows that no mass immigration occurred during the times that Smith indicates. I don't personally know the guy who wrote the article I linked, so I can't vouch for his credentials other than to say his explanation of how mcDNA can be used to prove or disprove Smith's writings are exactly as I understand it to work. His conclusions are exactly as I've read in other works by very credible researchers such as Dr. Richard Dawkins, a geneticist. As long as you're going to try to make the data fit the story, we're at an impasse.

In fact, no other members of the tribes of Joseph can be pinpointed in the modern world, so we don't know what their mitochondrial DNA looked like. Present day Asians may well contain DNA from several other tribes of Israel or the tribe of Manasseh, as these tribes were scattered into Asia during the conquest of the Northern and Southern kingdoms.

The argument from absence of evidence. "We haven't yet found the DNA that would prove our position, so it's still possible." American Indians have been conclusively shown to have originated in Asia. We even know that they came to America via the Bering Strait land bridge that formed between Siberia and Alaska roughly 12,000 years ago. Polynesians also originated in Asia. In fact, we've accounted for pretty much the origins of every race on this planet. There are no holes to support some mysterious connection.

And this really is what's so frustrating for scientific-minded people like myself. Religion puts out so much misinformation and supposition-as-fact that we continually have to revisit facts that have been known for years, decades, sometimes even centuries. If you're trying to make the evidence fit your story, you're doing it wrong.

[mox 298]

Since there's been a lot of talk about John Smith and his alleged bad deeds as well as Christians in general, we ought to talk about the atheists biggest embarrassment and goofball...Madalyn Murray. She was the one who ended school prayer and famously called for open and free sexuality (although who would want her, she was butt ugly). She described herself as a "sexual libertarian" and stated that children in sixth grade should be given sex education and "be allowed to go at it without supervision or restriction -- in their parents' bedroom, on the grass in a park", and so forth.^[/url] She felt that relationships between people, emotional or sexual, were not open to any kind of supervision by other people and especially not by the government. She loved attacking and insulting Christians. She formed American Atheists, a dubious organization with a checkered history around money shenanigans. She was touted as America's most hated woman. Ultimately she was murdered by one of her own.

This is how the atheist's First Lady operated at a key time in atheist history. No wonder decent people are often turned off by atheists. Look at their key leader from the 1960s to the 1980s.

She sounds like a thoroughly awful person, and I'm glad to have never known her. I'm thankful, however, that she was able to re-establish the division of church and state in public schools by having "coercive prayer" abolished. Otherwise she sounds like an extremist nut-job.

[visaveteran 1]

One reason for religion is to guide and control human behavior. To set limits and boundaries. To establish concepts of right and wrong. Science can't really do this. Science might tell us what the earth's crust is made of but not how to treat women and children in the tribe, village or culture. Most traditional cultures have medicine men, priests or holy men. Before medical doctors even existed, these healers tended to the physical and emotional health of the people.

There is also the importance and power of traditions and rituals. Anyone who's be part of a powerful ritual knows how it effects them and creates moments of connection with those sharing the ritual, and all those ancestors who came before.

[mox 298]

As for government types. In a perfect world where everyone is good, communism is the best type of government. ...

Thanks for the kind words. I'm not convinced that even in a world where everybody is "good" you could pull off a Communist society that also embraces capitalism. The two are polar opposites. I mean, you can't have all property and industry controlled by the state and still have any kind of real markets. And even if you just went with the most perfect version of communism where the state really does work in the best interests of the people, I think I'd still prefer Democracy. Handing over everything, especially the fruits of your labor, to the state--even for the good of all--still strikes me as sort of bleak. And while I believe religion to be harmful to our growth as a moral society, I believe people should have the choice. I'm not sure you could really reconcile that under Communism.

All in all, in conclusion. It is HATE, that destroys. HATE can be in politics, religion, or anything. It is HATE that drives extremism and fascism to kill people. Nothing wrong with all religions or governments until it encourages HATE against another type of religion or political view. It is HATE that makes the NICEST people do the DUMBEST things. For example: the USA(Best country in the world I love it) HATED the Soviet Union and Iran so much that they funded Osama Bin Laden to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and funded Saddam Hussein in Iraq against Iran. The USA didn't care who Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein was, all they cared about was they shared the HATE against the Soviet Union and Iran. I am sure there is a saying in every religion to what eventually happened later. I say,"What goes around, comes around."

In your non-religious examples, I think if you replaced HATE with GREED, you'd be on to something. I don't believe most Americans ever hated the people of the Soviet Union. Americans overall hated their government, but I think we understood that people are people and your average Russian was just unfortunate to live under such an oppressive government.

Stalin didn't just kill those who were "against him." He would kill at random, sending letters to local officials telling them to round up 100 "enemies of the state," or else. It was about creating a culture of obedience and control through fear and terror.

Exactly. There's a scene in Schindler's List where (if memory serves, it's been awhile) the camp commandant is standing up on his balcony just randomly picking off Jewish prisoners. As a Jew, there's nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter if you work harder or faster, if you happen to catch his eye he's going to shoot you because he's an immoral sadist. I think Stalin was a lot like that. You could be the most loyal party member in the country, but all it took for you to be targeted is for Stalin to get up on the wrong side of the bed. Truly horrific.

One reason for religion is to guide and control human behavior. To set limits and boundaries. To establish concepts of right and wrong. Science can't really do this. Science might tell us what the earth's crust is made of but not how to treat women and children in the tribe, village or culture. Most traditional cultures have medicine men, priests or holy men. Before medical doctors even existed, these healers tended to the physical and emotional health of the people.

By this logic, we should be seeing atheists behaving like anarchists. We don't have god to guide our moral compass, so we should be out killing, robbing, and raping in vastly higher numbers than our believing counterparts. And yet the vast majority of incarcerated prisoners consider themselves religious, not even counting the prisoners who "found Jesus" while incarcerated. Not only don't we need belief for morality, I think an argument could even be made that belief weakens morality. After all, if I know that I can obtain forgiveness for a sin just by asking God, I'll be less likely to hold back based on the moral imperative not to.

Atheism doesn't automatically make you moral, as your Madalyn Murray example shows. (although I'm not so sure her problem was so much moral as it was that she was just plain stupid) But you don't need religion to have morals. Ask Pat Tillman, Albert Einstein, Douglas Adams, Kurt Vonnegut, Gene Wilder, Ron Reagan, and many others. Talk to roughly 98% of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences and see what their criminal records looks like.

There is also the importance and power of traditions and rituals. Anyone who's be part of a powerful ritual knows how it effects them and creates moments of connection with those sharing the ritual, and all those ancestors who came before.

Rituals are an important part of human society, yes. I find value in the pledge of allegiance, or standing to sing the national anthem at a sporting event. I find value in singing happy birthday to my children, and I even find value in sharing Christmas dinner with family. (I'd find just as much value in gathering for Halloween dinner or ground hog day dinner, but whatever the excuse, I just like being around family.) I found lots of value in the ritual to become married to my wife and watching my children graduate from high school. Ritual doesn't have to be religious, and in fact non-religious rituals were probably going on for a long time before they ever became religious.

[eekee 182]

All of the leaders of the NKVD were executed under Stalin, except for the last one, and that is because he was working on a top secret nuclear project that he needed to finish. Khruschev did the job for Stalin. Not even the closest people to him were safe--he refused to rescue his own son when he was a POW.

[SMR 368]

See, you're doing what millions of Christians do all over the world. You're rationalizing, trying to make scripture written a couple millenia ago fit the world as we know it to be today. The original Hebrew text is VERY clear that these are to be interpreted as literal days. The Hebrew word for day has a single, specific meaning. Biblical scholars are very adamant that if the original writer meant anything else, he'd have chosen a different word. The two concepts are so different in the original language, that I think it's the equivalent of arguing that "when he said tomato, he really meant swamp monster."

So either the world was created in a single 24-hour period, or it was not. The scriptures give you no leeway. 2 Peter 20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

You rejected that the golden tablets in the Book of Mormon are allegorical because the scripture makes no mention that they are anything but physical. This is the same thing. And the reason it's such a big deal is because it underscores the fact that science and belief cannot be reconciled. If you believe that the Genesis isn't literally the truth, then you're also rejecting Jesus' admonition in 2 Peter 20-21. And the next thing you know, the whole thing starts to unravel.

You are completely ignoring what I just said. The sun was created on the 4th "day." The story of the creation is, by it's very nature, a history of a period of time when present units of time didn't make sense. Obsessing on the claim that a day in the proto-human creative period has to be equivalent to a modern day is pointless. They don't. Your expertise in the Hebrew language is exaggerated.

It's really up to you to decide how to interpret your faith, but science isn't a matter of interpretation. The DNA conclusively shows that no mass immigration occurred during the times that Smith indicates. I don't personally know the guy who wrote the article I linked, so I can't vouch for his credentials other than to say his explanation of how mcDNA can be used to prove or disprove Smith's writings are exactly as I understand it to work. His conclusions are exactly as I've read in other works by very credible researchers such as Dr. Richard Dawkins, a geneticist. As long as you're going to try to make the data fit the story, we're at an impasse.

The argument from absence of evidence. "We haven't yet found the DNA that would prove our position, so it's still possible." American Indians have been conclusively shown to have originated in Asia. We even know that they came to America via the Bering Strait land bridge that formed between Siberia and Alaska roughly 12,000 years ago. Polynesians also originated in Asia. In fact, we've accounted for pretty much the origins of every race on this planet. There are no holes to support some mysterious connection.

And this really is what's so frustrating for scientific-minded people like myself. Religion puts out so much misinformation and supposition-as-fact that we continually have to revisit facts that have been known for years, decades, sometimes even centuries. If you're trying to make the evidence fit your story, you're doing it wrong.

First, we're not talking about a mass immigration. It's a matter of a couple dozen people. That isn't exactly a mass immigration.

You claim to be very set on relying on evidence, but some of the things you believe as fact with little more than a scientists educated guess are somewhat revealing. There is no evidence that anyone crossed the Bering Strait beyond the fact that it is a good explanation of things as they are. There are many good explanations of things as they are. Similarities in mitochondrial DNA can just as easily be explained by the theory that two groups of people left Jerusalem at about the same time. One settled in the America and the other in Asia. Archaeological evidence is sparse, to understate the fact.

As long as you're determined to accept as gospel any theory that would disprove the story, we're at an impasse.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Those bloody godless heathens ! No more tooth fairy's for them or their children !!!

[mox 298]

Your expertise in the Hebrew language is exaggerated.

My expertise in the Hebrew language is non-existent. But I trust Hebrew linguists to tell the truth, and more than one source has made it very clear that the way the original scriptures were written can leave no doubt that Genesis reports literal days. The Hebrew word for days can have multiple meanings (just like the word "age" can have multiple meanings), but when used with a number or when used with words like "days" or "nights" or "afternoons," it *always* means a literal day. There's just no other way around this. If the writer had meant any other meaning, he'd have used an entirely different word.

On the face of it, it might seem like a small point, but it's a keystone detail. It literally makes or breaks Judaism and Christianity. So if you're not going to believe Hebrew linguists or scientists, as a religious person you should at least be listening to the words of Jesus: 2 Peter 20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." So on the one hand we have Hebrew linguists AND Jesus saying that these are literal days. On the other, we have...er...you saying that they are figurative days.

And because the bible can be shown to be wrong about creation, it can no longer be trusted as THE authoritative source on god. So, having completely debunked Christianity AND Judaism, I think I'm off to Disneyland now.

First, we're not talking about a mass immigration. It's a matter of a couple dozen people. That isn't exactly a mass immigration.

Fair enough, I misspoke. But because it was only a couple dozen people, it makes it that much easier to trace their ancestry. If all Native Americans come from just a few dozen people, that also should show up in the mcDNA record. I'm guessing that since no mention of this has been made, it's probably not the case.

You claim to be very set on relying on evidence, but some of the things you believe as fact with little more than a scientists educated guess are somewhat revealing.

If by "educated guess" you mean "hard science," then yes. You seem to believe that scientists are just sitting around and coming up with this stuff off the top of their heads. But they're not. These are actual tests conducted in laboratory settings by educated scientists, using proven methods of genetic investigation. If their results had been inconclusive or if they couldn't make these determinations with any accuracy, they would say so. But the fact is that mitochondrial DNA markers are extremely accurate, and they prove Smith's account wrong. There simply is no getting away from this. Smith is wrong about the origins of native Americans, which calls into question his credibility on other claims.

If scientists just sat around taking "educated guesses," we'd have never landed a man on the moon. We wouldn't have the polio vaccine, penicillin, be able to track criminals through their DNA, cracked the enigma code, split the atom, carbon-date fossils, accelerate charged particles and smash them into each other, build computers, determine where we are through GPS satellites (or even put those satellites into geostationary orbit), or even make a simple phone call. It just floors me that you would dismiss out of hand the very real research that is being done in just a single area of science. If they were just pulling this research out of their butts, there's an entire global scientific community that would take them to task on it before you could blink. You can do what others have done and claim supernatural intervention to fool the scientists if you want, but you simply cannot question the science with any credibility. You might as well be questioning the validity of the polio vaccine.

There is no evidence that anyone crossed the Bering Strait beyond the fact that it is a good explanation of things as they are.

And yet we have lots of evidence that humans migrated across the Bering Strait, but absolutely no evidence to suggest Jewish tribes migrated across the Atlantic Ocean where they rode horses that were extinct 10,000 years before they arrived and that didn't reappear (via the Spanish) in North America for another thousand years, and who used mastodons ("curelom") as work animals that had also been extinct thousands of years previous to their arrival.

There are many good explanations of things as they are. Similarities in mitochondrial DNA can just as easily be explained by the theory that two groups of people left Jerusalem at about the same time. One settled in the America and the other in Asia. Archaeological evidence is sparse, to understate the fact.

If this were the case, we would see shared mcDNA markers between Asians and Jews. We do not. We see them as completely separate races.

[SMR 368]

My expertise in the Hebrew language is non-existent. But I trust Hebrew linguists to tell the truth, and more than one source has made it very clear that the way the original scriptures were written can leave no doubt that Genesis reports literal days. The Hebrew word for days can have multiple meanings (just like the word "age" can have multiple meanings), but when used with a number or when used with words like "days" or "nights" or "afternoons," it *always* means a literal day. There's just no other way around this. If the writer had meant any other meaning, he'd have used an entirely different word.

On the face of it, it might seem like a small point, but it's a keystone detail. It literally makes or breaks Judaism and Christianity. So if you're not going to believe Hebrew linguists or scientists, as a religious person you should at least be listening to the words of Jesus: 2 Peter 20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." So on the one hand we have Hebrew linguists AND Jesus saying that these are literal days. On the other, we have...er...you saying that they are figurative days.

And because the bible can be shown to be wrong about creation, it can no longer be trusted as THE authoritative source on god. So, having completely debunked Christianity AND Judaism, I think I'm off to Disneyland now.

I understand the importance of the veracity of the creation story. Believe me, I do. I just disagree that an account of a time when the sun didn't exist would have to use our definition of days, since said definition relies on the existence of the sun, which, as I said, didn't exist.

Fair enough, I misspoke. But because it was only a couple dozen people, it makes it that much easier to trace their ancestry. If all Native Americans come from just a few dozen people, that also should show up in the mcDNA record. I'm guessing that since no mention of this has been made, it's probably not the case.

And, as I have never disputed the fact that other groups also came to the Americas, the DNA of a couple dozen people could be completely undetectable.

If by "educated guess" you mean "hard science," then yes. You seem to believe that scientists are just sitting around and coming up with this stuff off the top of their heads. But they're not. These are actual tests conducted in laboratory settings by educated scientists, using proven methods of genetic investigation. If their results had been inconclusive or if they couldn't make these determinations with any accuracy, they would say so. But the fact is that mitochondrial DNA markers are extremely accurate, and they prove Smith's account wrong. There simply is no getting away from this. Smith is wrong about the origins of native Americans, which calls into question his credibility on other claims.

If scientists just sat around taking "educated guesses," we'd have never landed a man on the moon. We wouldn't have the polio vaccine, penicillin, be able to track criminals through their DNA, cracked the enigma code, split the atom, carbon-date fossils, accelerate charged particles and smash them into each other, build computers, determine where we are through GPS satellites (or even put those satellites into geostationary orbit), or even make a simple phone call. It just floors me that you would dismiss out of hand the very real research that is being done in just a single area of science. If they were just pulling this research out of their butts, there's an entire global scientific community that would take them to task on it before you could blink. You can do what others have done and claim supernatural intervention to fool the scientists if you want, but you simply cannot question the science with any credibility. You might as well be questioning the validity of the polio vaccine.

It amazes me that every generation of people has assumed that they got everything right, all the while aware of the utter ignorance and misconceptions of previous generations. I call it hubris.

And yet we have lots of evidence that humans migrated across the Bering Strait, but absolutely no evidence to suggest Jewish tribes migrated across the Atlantic Ocean where they rode horses that were extinct 10,000 years before they arrived and that didn't reappear (via the Spanish) in North America for another thousand years, and who used mastodons ("curelom") as work animals that had also been extinct thousands of years previous to their arrival.

If this were the case, we would see shared mcDNA markers between Asians and Jews. We do not. We see them as completely separate races.

Well, I think they migrated across the Pacific and they weren't Jewish. Dating of fossils is actually a very inexact science. And I have never heard the assertion that a curelom is a mastodon.

Actually, if this were the case, there is no reason to expect a sharing of markers between Asians and Jews because I didn't say anything about Jews.