Ancient Native Americans from Europe?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I think this thread is a good case in point why it's folly to jettison the spiritual in favor of the physical when the two appear to be irreconcilably opposed. Our very incomplete understanding of the physical is not enough for some of us to dismiss the spiritual witness we've received.

Evidently you're more than comfortable in doing so.

Woot is a spokesperson of the type I didn't believe existed, somebody who asserts "science" knows more than it actually can know. He stated it carefully once, "working assumptions", but is often also careless. [I am too so shoot me].

Science is a wonderful method, providing for a modern life rivaled by none of the past great societies. It doesn't provide answers to moral questions though. It doesn't provide purpose, unless you are driven to learn whatever aspect of research you desire.

The scientific, empirical method is wonderful and marvelous. It will continue to provide insights into the physical world around us. It is NOT capable of providing insights into everything though. Woot might mouth these words but he doesn't believe them.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Woot is a spokesperson of the type I didn't believe existed, somebody who asserts "science" knows more than it actually can know. He stated it carefully once, "working assumptions", but is often also careless. [I am too so shoot me].

Science is a wonderful method, providing for a modern life rivaled by none of the past great societies. It doesn't provide answers to moral questions though. It doesn't provide purpose, unless you are driven to learn whatever aspect of research you desire.

The scientific, empirical method is wonderful and marvelous. It will continue to provide insights into the physical world around us. It is NOT capable of providing insights into everything though. Woot might mouth these words but he doesn't believe them.

So first, I'm someone you didn't believe could exist, but then you admit you have the same supposed problems, then you pretend to tell me what I believe by deliberately misinterpreting my words. I guess I can't argue with that.

I certainly never implied that science is a moral system or has any power to give purpose to anyone's life. That's philosophy's domain. That you think I have ever said otherwise, and that you think I don't believe what I'm saying right now isn't my problem.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Circumstantial evidence of Pre-Columbian American contact with Egypt as it relates to your comment about an "unlikely boat".

Are you suggesting that they took the boat back to Egypt after they found some drugs?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

You presented a silly, subjective parody. How am I to "contend" with that?

Because you say it is silly doesn't make it so. Parody and allegory are essential human intellectual exercises. You would start by avoiding absolutes -especially in regards to science. You cannot absoulutely positively prove your point with scientific evidence. For the evidence is inconclusive and truth is fluid.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Because you say it is silly doesn't make it so. Parody and allegory are essential human intellectual exercises. You would start by avoiding absolutes -especially in regards to science. You cannot absoulutely positively prove your point with scientific evidence. For the evidence is inconclusive and truth is fluid.

Thanks for reinforcing the point I've been making this whole time. Good to know you're on my side.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Are you suggesting that they took the boat back to Egypt after they found some drugs?

I'm suggesting

1. Boats must have existed that could make the voyage.
2. Contact between the two hemispheres is not unprecedented.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

Thanks for reinforcing the point I've been making this whole time. Good to know you're on my side.

And you dodge again.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm suggesting

1. Boats must have existed that could make the voyage.
2. Contact between the two hemispheres is not unprecedented.

1. isn't necessarily true, but even if so, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with your greater point.

2. if the finding is confirmed, this would seem to be the best explanation, but I don't really find this shocking, especially if this new stuff about European ancestry among a few native americans pans out. It still is absolutely not positive evidence for the Lehi story, which is what this was supposed to be about.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm suggesting

1. Boats must have existed that could make the voyage.
2. Contact between the two hemispheres is not unprecedented.

I am not arguing for the historicity of religious claims, but neither is Indy. To be fair, what Indy is arguing is quite reasonable.

Many of the "scientific" claims used to "debunk" "historical" claims of the historicity of religious or LDS beliefs are sometimes bad science. It doesn't make the LDS beliefs any more true or false, but the detractors should drop the argument as a basis of attack.

For example, "no horses".

Or, "how could anybody have arrived in America by boat, that's scientifically impossible?"

Or, the only genetic contributions are via the Siberian land bridge, every scientist "knows" their are no contributions from elsewhere and hence Mormonism is false.

Woot is actually more sophisticated than that, but in many ways just as naive, or so he appears.

Any historical claims by religionists should be challenged scientifically, but they should be challenged by good science and just means.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

And you dodge again.

How am I to refute your point when I agree with it wholeheartedly? You're really confused if you think that I've ever said that science can "prove" anything.