For example: Geneticists have done thousands of DNA tests on every native population group across north and south america. Everyone of those tests confirm that native american populations descended almost entirely from a single source – Siberia. Archaeologists have traced migrations of people in the western hemisphere, through tools and bones, etc., from a single original source – Siberia. Anthropologists have studied bone and skull samples from several thousand year old remains of ancient native americans, and have conclusively determined they descended from a single source – Siberia.
Today, the average Mormon pseudo-scientist will tell you that DNA cant conclusively determine where these people came from, not enough tests have been done, archaeologists haven’t yet discovered every population group, and the list goes on and on with the excuses they use to deny actual scientific discoveries.
OK, so they are saying NOW that DNA isn’t good enough to trace ancestry, and that’s because the evidence opposes their point of view.
But I guarantee, if a single shred of DNA evidence came to light, linking a Native American group to 7th century BCE Israel, Mormons would be all over that evidence. You see, the Book of Mormon is true. Native Americans really did come from Jerusalem. But wait, just a minute ago you said DNA isn’t a good source of evidence.
There is a huge mountain of evidence that now refutes the claims of the Book of Mormon, and it continues to grow year by year. And year by year Mormons continue to ignore or discredit that evidence. But if one shred of evidence pops up that appears to make a similarity to something that is written in the Book of Mormon (for example: the Lehi stone or stone boxes) then, to them, it is iron-clad proof that their book is true.
In summary: my real question is, how can people continue to spin the evidence? How can people justify their beliefs, when 99% of the evidence refutes their claims, while the other 1% only kind of, sort of, maybe suggests supporting their belief?
Because humans don’t generally decide things based on rational examinations of the evidence. Our emotions make us believe something, then we invent rationalizations to explain our emotions after the fact.
It’s not exactly true there was only a single migration… Scientists think there were multiple migrations, some died out, all we have are the ones that survived. We do need more DNA evidence, probably a lot is underwater. There was a DNA test done on a native of Tierra del Fuego that traced her directly back to Africa, not Asia (did they come over on boats? we have no idea). However there is not a chance any of these migrations came from *Israel*. The lost tribes of Israel don’t even exist, the united Kingdom of 10 tribes ruled by David is a myth.
You act as though all scientists agree completely on every topic. That simply is not the case.
Why is it that you ignore the fact that Semitic DNA is found in Native American populations?
Why do you pretend that the 10 commandments (pre-dating the Spanish) weren’t found in New Mexico (…..and by the way, they were written in ancient Hebrew).
Why do you pretend that Joseph Smith didn’t accurately describe the Olmec (along with their time line) when scholars didn’t discover this until 1941?
Why do you pretend that Joseph Smith didn’t accurately describe the 4th century Maya when scholars didn’t discover this until the 70’s (regarding cannibalism, human sacrifice, and warfare).
Why do you ignore the elaborate hebrew poetry forms that exist in the Book of Mormon when this form of poetry (chiasmus) wasn’t discovered until long after the Book of Mormon was printed and Joseph Smith was dead?
Why do you ignore the fact that scholars now agree that the ":Siberian land bridge only": theory is invalid and that they’ve replaced it with a ":multiple maritime arrival": theory…………that is now consistent with the Book of Mormon. (Look up Michael Coe, the Harvard Mayan Archeologist for more info).
Why do you ignore the Berkley study that determined that it was ":statistically indefensible": for either Joseph Smith, Cowdery, or Spaulding to have written the Book of Mormon?
So, if you’re so ":logical":, ":open-minded": and ":scientific":, why do you ignore all of these less convenient facts???
All it refutes is Joseph Smith’s claim that Native AmeriIndians are descended PRIMARILY from the Jews. Nothing about the Book of Mormon. Nothing about what a gospel failure he will be.
>: if a single shred of DNA evidence came to light, linking a Native American group to 7th century BCE Israel, Mormons would be all over that evidence. ":You see, the Book of Mormon is true. Native Americans really did come from Jerusalem.": But wait, just a minute ago you said DNA isn’t a good source of evidence.<:
What one DNA expert who also happens to be LDS, said was that he would be as skeptical of someone saying they have DNA evidence to prove the Book of Mormon right, as he is of what someone says proves that it’s not.
But you are not saying that there is more than enough evidence to prove us wrong, just that there is enough for you. Which, really, wouldn’t take much, would it?
We can accept the truth that we can learn from DNA. According to the Book of Mormon, the predominant people of North America were the Jaredites, who could have been Asian for all we know. They certainly weren’t Jews, as Abraham had yet to be born. Whether they came by boat or bridge is unprovable by genetics.
According to the oral history of the rubber people, men came from across the ocean and brought with them society and written language. They quickly became kings over the local population. This seems to corroborate the Book of Mormon, which talks of Lehi who came across the ocean with his family: his sons Nephi and Laman became kings in the new world.
A tapestry in the Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City shows a man leading people out of the ocean, and going from city to city. In is hand he carries a pole to which is afixed a round object. This object is known as the Giron Gagal, which translated is compass or director. This seems to corroborate the Book of Mormon account of the Liahona: a round object that pointed the way through the wilderness: it too is translated as compass or director.
Mormon boasted that he was a direct descendant of Lehi. Such a boast would be meaningless if everyone were a direct descendant of Lehi. DNA doesn’t refute the Book of Mormon. It helps explain it.
They have no choice, really. They have so much to lose. Their leaders repeatedly state that the Book of Mormon has to be true or the whole church isn’t. And they are correct, if the book is wrong, their whole lives have been built on a fraud.
When the RLDS church finally bit the bullet and announced they no longer think the book is true and they don’t think Smith was a real prophet, they lost half their membership over night.
The LDS church will do whatever it takes to avoid going down that road.
It’s amazing that people who avoid and deny science can manage to go in tall buildings, big bridges, drive cars, go to the doctor. Our lives are defined by the very science they fear.
Unfortunately, the same fear of truth is driving the fundamentalists in this country to destroy science education and our future.
I don’t care what they all believe, I just hate it when they try and force it on everyone else.
Mostly lack of faith I being a Latter day Saint do not put my faith in mans understanding or evidence because it can be turned on twisted and denied by an individual without anyone even contending against him. So I continue to pursue perfection and use the heart and mind that God gave me and go on from there. If there were no elephants in the americas then why in madera ca did they find a mammoth grave site.
That’s what faith is: Belief in spite of all else.
Scary, isn’t it?
Anything can be ":spun": a certain way. It’s no suprise that religious people try to ":spin": it their direction.
religious people use only the part of science that is convenient for them
and then the Lumbee tribe…..messes everything up…..