Very interesting program on PBS's Nova ...

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Not sure what European-like spear points in stone age times and European-like DNA have to do with Hebrews in the Middle East in 400 B.C. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

Well, let's see. Not too long ago in this forum scientific DNA evidence concerning the peopling of the Americas was cited in an effort to undermine the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

Of course that DNA evidence is evolving and infact much more evidence is being produced to suggest that acient peoples from many corners of the earth migrated to the Americas, and not merely via an exposed land mass due to receeding ice.

If you had watched the show the very credible scientists, who are not Mormon, nor have any connection to FARMS have proposed the revolutionary and very controversial idea that ancient peoples migrated to the Americas via boat.

Therefore one can conlcude that any DNA evidence here to fore cited is only a sampling of ALL of the evidence yet to be revealed on the subject of ancient peopling of the Americas and can not conclusively prove that the Book of Mormon is false, or that it is merely a work of fiction of a religous genius.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Well, let's see. Not too long ago in this forum scientific DNA evidence concerning the peopling of the Americas was cited in an effort to undermine the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

Of course that DNA evidence is evolving and infact much more evidence is being produced to suggest that acient peoples from many corners of the earth migrated to the Americas, and not merely via an exposed land mass due to receeding ice.

If you had watched the show the very credible scientists, who are not Mormon, nor have any connection to FARMS have proposed the revolutionary and very controversial idea that ancient peoples migrated to the Americas via boat.

Therefore one can conlcude that any DNA evidence here to fore cited is only a sampling of ALL of the evidence yet to be revealed on the subject of ancient peopling of the Americas and can not conclusively prove that the Book of Mormon is false, or that it is merely a work of fiction of a religous genius.

I think that this is much more consistent with the FARMS view of the BOM which is that it took place in a limited area. If this is so, it is not hard to imagine that the Lamanite remnant (of course all the Nephites died) could be rather small and that its DNA has yet to be sampled because, again, it is limited to a relatively small group of people in a particular area or two. That all makes sense to me and seems like a reasonable position.

Of course, it is also a position that is plainly at odds with what most people in our church believe as well as the introduction page of the BOM itself.

I also should point out, in light of recent discussions on civility, that if we are going to start discussions about the evidence of the BOM, it is an invitation for SU and others to present the other side of the argument and I don't personally think it is fair to get short with him when he does (not saying you have, just anticipating where these discussions often go).

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think that this is much more consistent with the FARMS view of the BOM which is that it took place in a limited area. If this is so, it is not hard to imagine that the Lamanite remnant (of course all the Nephites died) could be rather small and that its DNA has yet to be sampled because, again, it is limited to a relatively small group of people in a particular area or two. That all makes sense to me and seems like a reasonable position.

Of course, it is also a position that is plainly at odds with what most people in our church believe as well as the introduction page of the BOM itself.

I also should point out, in light of recent discussions on civility, that if we are going to start discussions about the evidence of the BOM, it is an invitation for SU and others to present the other side of the argument and I don't personally think it is fair to get short with him when he does (not saying you have, just anticipating where these discussions often go).

Understood. I'm offering a ball to play with

What was truly interesting about the show is that as a result of this new evidence scientist are changing their entire mindset about ancient peoples in the Americas.

Instead of only envisioning them as nomadic big hunters they have found stone age farming tools to support the idea of permanent communities. They are also open to the possibity of boat travel between the two hemispheres.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Understood. I'm offering a ball to play with

What was truly interesting about the show is that as a result of this new evidence scientist are changing their entire mindset about ancient peoples in the Americas.

Instead of only envisioning them as nomadic big hunters they have found stone age farming tools to support the idea of permanent communities. They are also open to the possibity of boat travel between the two hemispheres.

I may learn one day that I have been woefully wrong (and hope I am) but I have yet to see any physical evidence that either affirms or disproves the BOM as an authetic historical record. As has been alluded to in this thread, there are mountains of evidence sufficient to allow either side of that argument to infer they are correct.

On the one hand, I think it would be foolish to think that we know everything there is to know and that we might not find irrefutable evidence of Nephite and Lamanite cities, tools, etc. On the other hand, all the existing evidence which I have seen that currently exists requires a leap of faith. My point is that the believer makes that leap of faith anyway with or without the physical proofs. Of course there is nothing wrong with keeping an eye out for the proofs, but it is not as good a foundation for belief as is the holy ghost. No one can disprove what you feel. Inferences based on physical evidence are always subject to demolition. Just my opinion.

[SeattleUte]

All the lawyers know how hard it is to prove a negative, and no reputable scientist or institution is is out there trying to disprove the Book of Momormon with DNA evidence. I may be wrong but I believe Mormons indeed BYU were the first and have essentially been the only ones interested in DNA evidence of ancient Hebrews settling in the Americas.

That it may have been possible for prehistoric people to migrate to the Americas via watercraft was arguably proven by Thor Hyerdol a long time ago. Many have cited trace evidence of prehistoric European. I don't deny either of these propositions. I don't know what they prove with respect to the Book of Mormon or ancient Hebrews in the Americas. For what it's worth, there is also evidence of prehistoric horses, etc. in the Americas (no wheels found yet; I don't think there's evidence that any prehistoric man anywhere figured out the wheel).

It is clear that the overhelming weight of the historical and natural evidence does contradict the traditional explanation for the relationship between aboriginies in the Americas and even the Pacific isles and Book of Mormon peoples, as B.H. Roberts himself tried to tell Church leaders. I see the limited geography theory as a form of dissembling after it seemed so darn clear for so many years that Incas and Eskimos must have descended from ancient Hebrews who migrated to the Americas less than 2,500 years ago. Still, I have no interest in debating at length the limited geography theory's merits and demerits.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

All the lawyers know how hard it is to prove a negative, and no reputable scientist or institution is is out there trying to disprove the Book of Momormon with DNA evidence. I may be wrong but I believe Mormons indeed BYU were the first and have essentially been the only ones interested in DNA evidence of ancient Hebrews settling in the Americas.

That it may have been possible for prehistoric people to migrate to the Americas via watercraft was arguably proven by Thor Hyerdol a long time ago. Many have cited trace evidence of prehistoric European. I don't deny either of these propositions. I don't know what they prove with respect to the Book of Mormon or ancient Hebrews. For what it's worth, there is also evidence of prehistoric horses, etc. in the Americas (no wheels found yet; I don't think there's evidence that any prehistoric man anywhere figured out the wheel).

It is clear that the overhelming weight of the historical and natural evidence does contradict the traditional explanation for the relationship between aboriginies in the Americas and even the Pacific isles and Book of Mormon peoples, as B.H. Roberts himself tried to tell Church leaders. I see the limited geography theory as a form of dissembling after it seemed so darn clear for so many years that Incas and Eskimos must have descended from ancient Hebrews who migrated to the Americas less than 2,500 years ago. Still, I have no interest in debating at length the limited geography theory's merits and demerits.

SU, Revelation wasn't the last book written, FYI.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I may learn one day that I have been woefully wrong (and hope I am) but I have yet to see any physical evidence that either affirms or disproves the BOM as an authetic historical record. As has been alluded to in this thread, there are mountains of evidence sufficient to allow either side of that argument to infer they are correct.

On the one hand, I think it would be foolish to think that we know everything there is to know and that we might not find irrefutable evidence of Nephite and Lamanite cities, tools, etc. On the other hand, all the existing evidence which I have seen that currently exists requires a leap of faith. My point is that the believer makes that leap of faith anyway with or without the physical proofs. Of course there is nothing wrong with keeping an eye out for the proofs, but it is not as good a foundation for belief as is the holy ghost. No one can disprove what you feel. Inferences based on physical evidence are always subject to demolition. Just my opinion.

Oh, I don't disagree. The whole point of my original post was to emphasize what you so aptly stated, yet as applied to the scientist and not merely the believer.

Both the believer and scientist must make a giant leap of faith when presented with so-called evidence. Yet the believer can fall back on faith while the scientist is left to appreciate that ALL scholarship is merely inference and subject to change as the evidence evolves.