LDS DNA Refutes the BOM

[Michael Snow]

Mormon Scientist confirm that DNA falsifies the story of the BOM ...that the inhabitants of American came across the ocean from Hebrew lands.

 

[Michael Snow]

More excellent resources on Mormonism Mormonism

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Any faith is irrational. There are tons of books and videos convincingly refuting any part of the Bible. Yet, we stubbornly keep believing its contents.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Mormon Scientist confirm that DNA falsifies the story of the BOM ...that the inhabitants of American came across the ocean from Hebrew lands.

Not at all. Now, if the Book of Mormon made a claim that ALL inhabitants of the Americans were of Hebrew descent, then you would have an argument. As there is no such claim being made, you don't have much of a point.

 

[St_Worm2]

Any faith is irrational. There are tons of books and videos convincingly refuting any part of the Bible. Yet, we stubbornly keep believing its contents.

Hi CFK, if you believe the Christian faith is irrational, and every part of the Bible has been refuted as fake, why do you continue to refer to yourself as a Baptist here at CF?

--David

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Hey Jane ..

 

[Jane_Doe]

More excellent resources on Mormonism Mormonism

I made it to the second paragraph before this page made false claims. I'm sorry, but if a person wants to refute my beliefs but doesn't even bother to find out what they are (or worse knowingly misrepresenting them), I have a hard time taking them serious at all.

 

[Ironhold]

You post a video.

I post a link.

DNA and the Book of Mormon: Science, Evidence, and Scriptures--An LDS Perspective

Round and round we go...

 

[Jane_Doe]

If you believe the Christian faith is irrational and every part of the Bible has been refuted as fake, why do you refer to yourself a Baptist here at CF?

Just because someone with a silver tongue makes a video convincingly "disputing" scripture, that doesn't mean that they actually really did that versus just made it silver tongue mirage. And there are many silver tongues out there. And many claim it's irrational to believe in a Creator, Heaven, or coming back from the dead, or all this stuff we have zero and anti-scientific evidence for. But still, it's True. Such is the wonder of our God. If a person really wants to know Truth, they should turn not to YouTube, but to Him: the source of all Truth and Goodness.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Hi CFK, if you believe the Christian faith is irrational, and every part of the Bible has been refuted as fake, why do you continue to refer to yourself as a Baptist here at CF?

--David

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Hey Jane ..

I didn't say that those Bible refuters shattered my faith. Maybe the opposite is true. More opposition only makes it stronger. Faith by definition is blindly accepting something as true though we don't know it, don't understand it. We accept it, live by it and either get disillusioned or get enhanced by our experiences.

As a side note. My faith is surrounded by Muslims. The Bible and my faith often seems most ridiculous and crazy to people who don't share it. That's their worldview. I have my reasons to choosing my worldview. Ultimately, it's going to be verified only after death or 2nd coming of Jesus. Not now and not here.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I made it to the second paragraph before this page made false claims. I'm sorry, but if a person wants to refute my beliefs but doesn't even bother to find out what they are (or worse knowingly misrepresenting them), I have a hard time taking them serious at all.

We'll just take note that yet again you claim that someone else "made false claims" but you didn't mention what they were or provide any logic or reasoning to demonstrate that false claims were made. Anyone can just yell "false claims!" when they hear something they don't like, but it doesn't really convince anyone unless proof is given by providing good reasons.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I didn't say that those Bible refuters shattered my faith. Maybe the opposite is true. More opposition only makes it stronger. Faith by definition is blindly accepting something as true though we don't know it, don't understand it. We accept it, live by it and either get disillusioned or get enhanced by our experiences.

Yeah, that's quite a narrow definition of faith. What you defined would more accurately be called "blind faith". Faith doesn't mean that there is no reason or rationale behind it; in fact, typically it's the opposite. Almost everything we believe is by faith. It's just a matter of what degree of faith. People can have a blind faith where they believe something with no evidence or even in the face of opposing evidence. On the other end of the spectrum people can have a faith that is built upon lots of evidence.

In science, it is presumed that observation of past phenomena indicates continuation of that phenomena in the future. If we observe a bear eating a fish, and we observe that 5,000 times, we scientifically conclude that bears eat fish and will eat fish tomorrow and beyond in the future. In reality, we don't know that bears will continue to eat fish; we are going on faith by presuming that a pattern will continue. Often when science fails (is wrong) it is this scenario where a pattern stops. At that point, scientists make more observations and draw conclusions as to why and often can eventually figure out why, but by then they have been wrong because they had put their faith into the continuation of that pattern.

It's unusual to me to hear someone who claims to be a Christian to also say his faith is blind and irrational. I don't think I've ever heard any Christian other than you say that. I have heard some people who have turned out to not be Christians make that claim - maybe they thought they were Christians, maybe they were lying, but I have encountered people who claimed to be Christians and then later turn out to not be (to de-convert or come out as non-Christian, typically atheist). I'm not saying that's the case with you but other than you those are the only kinds of people I've heard to claim to be Christians and then say their faith is blind.

Do you have blind (i.e. irrational) faith in anything other than Christianity?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Yeah, that's quite a narrow definition of faith. What you defined would more accurately be called "blind faith". Faith doesn't mean that there is no reason or rationale behind it; in fact, typically it's the opposite. Almost everything we believe is by faith. It's just a matter of what degree of faith. People can have a blind faith where they believe something with no evidence or even in the face of opposing evidence. On the other end of the spectrum people can have a faith that is built upon lots of evidence.

In science, it is presumed that observation of past phenomena indicates continuation of that phenomena in the future. If we observe a bear eating a fish, and we observe that 5,000 times, we scientifically conclude that bears eat fish and will eat fish tomorrow and beyond in the future. In reality, we don't know that bears will continue to eat fish; we are going on faith by presuming that a pattern will continue. Often when science fails (is wrong) it is this scenario where a pattern stops. At that point, scientists make more observations and draw conclusions as to why and often can eventually figure out why, but by then they have been wrong because they had put their faith into the continuation of that pattern.

It's unusual to me to hear someone who claims to be a Christian to also say his faith is blind and irrational. I don't think I've ever heard any Christian other than you say that. I have heard some people who have turned out to not be Christians make that claim - maybe they thought they were Christians, maybe they were lying, but I have encountered people who claimed to be Christians and then later turn out to not be (to de-convert or come out as non-Christian, typically atheist). I'm not saying that's the case with you but other than you those are the only kinds of people I've heard to claim to be Christians and then say their faith is blind.

Do you have blind (i.e. irrational) faith in anything other than Christianity?

You confuse knowledge with faith. You see a bear with your eyes. Knowledge. God you do not see. Hence, faith. Jesus said, child-like faith. Completely open, accepting by default without a glimpse of doubt.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You confuse knowledge with faith. You see a bear with your eyes. Knowledge. God you do not see. Hence, faith. Jesus said, child-like faith. Completely open, accepting by default without a glimpse of doubt.

No, you are the one confusing knowledge with faith. If you see a bear and are convinced that it's a bear then you have faith that it's a bear. Knowledge is familiarity with what a bear is. Your knowledge of bears is what gives you faith in your assessment that what you see is a bear.

Knowledge and faith are forms of belief. Knowledge is an awareness or familiarity whereas faith is a strong belief and trust. For example, the Bible says that the devils believe in God and tremble. In other words, they have knowledge and belief in God but they don't have faith in him.

Faith is not predicated upon a lack of evidence; it is typically the opposite. If you tell a loved one who is going on an interview, "You'll do great, I have faith in you!" it doesn't mean that you know nothing about that person but you're choosing to blindly believe in him or her. On the contrary, it means that because you know that loved one so well you have faith that he or she will succeed.

Again, if your faith in God is so irrational and blind as you claim it to be do you apply that to other areas of your life? Do you have an irrational belief or blind faith in other things? Why or why not?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

No, you are the one confusing knowledge with faith. If you see a bear and are convinced that it's a bear then you have faith that it's a bear. Knowledge is familiarity with what a bear is. Your knowledge of bears is what gives you faith in your assessment that what you see is a bear.

Knowledge and faith are forms of belief. Knowledge is an awareness or familiarity whereas faith is a strong belief and trust. For example, the Bible says that the devils believe in God and tremble. In other words, they have knowledge and belief in God but they don't have faith in him.

Faith is not predicated upon a lack of evidence; it is typically the opposite. If you tell a loved one who is going on an interview, "You'll do great, I have faith in you!" it doesn't mean that you know nothing about that person but you're choosing to blindly believe in him or her. On the contrary, it means that because you know that loved one so well you have faith that he or she will succeed.

Again, if your faith in God is so irrational and blind as you claim it to be do you apply that to other areas of your life? Do you have an irrational belief or blind faith in other things? Why or why not?

Jesus is worth all the faith in the world.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Mormon Scientist confirm that DNA falsifies the story of the BOM ...that the inhabitants of American came across the ocean from Hebrew lands.

This again is old news. Did you know you can study genetics at BYU, that's right Mormon professors who do reach and teach classes all about dna.

Lets break this down.

The Book of Mormon takes place in a 500 mile radius, adding up all the marching they do.

The first people of the Book of Mormon are not Hebrew but probably descendants of Japheth, they are also not alone here. They have a war and sweep the people off the land in front of them. At the end of their story two families war against each other killing off most of the people but there are some remaining who inter marry with Lehi's family.

Lehi is not a Jew but a descendant of Joseph. Joseph married an Egyptian women so their dna is going to look very different than other Hebrews. Later another group joins them and they are perhaps a mixture of the tribes although they seem to have intermarried with the surrounding people because their langue has been corrupted, so again a different dna strain.

At the end of the story every last remaining pure descendant of Lehi is hunted down and killed. So there is a loss of that dna line.

No one knows what the tribe of Joseph's dna looked like in 600 bc. Even if they dig up some old bones how do they know which tribe they come from. And lastly when the Spanish came they brought disease with them and about 90% the population of the Americas disappeared, whole tribes just died out taking their dna with them.

So all of this dna stuff is meaningless.

 

[Jane_Doe]

We'll just take note that yet again you claim that someone else "made false claims" but you didn't mention what they were or provide any logic or reasoning to demonstrate that false claims were made.

Actually I addressed these exact claims (they were literally copied/pasted) yesterday by the same poster. My response was ignored and then the false information copied pasted here again.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Actually I addressed these exact claims (they were literally copied/pasted) yesterday by the same poster. My response was ignored and then the false information copied pasted here again.

Addressing the claims and proving that they are false are two different things.

 

[dzheremi]

At the end of the story every last remaining pure descendant of Lehi is hunted down and killed. So there is a loss of that dna line.

No one knows what the tribe of Joseph's dna looked like in 600 bc. Even if they dig up some old bones how do they know which tribe they come from. And lastly when the Spanish came they brought disease with them and about 90% the population of the Americas disappeared, whole tribes just died out taking their dna with them.

So all of this dna stuff is meaningless.

This is written like you don't understand what DNA is. For one thing, whether a person is 'purely' something or not shouldn't matter, since testing for particular DNA markers (which is how they determine what 'tribe' a person is from; see here for a particular Jewish example) assumes that the marker will be present through generations of mutations accumulated through the passage of time. This is how peoples of the New World can be identified as coming from wherever they come from even though the Spanish came and committed rape and genocide centuries ago: because they're still identifiable as X; they're just now X with additional genetic material inherited when the Spanish came and conquered and raped their ancestors (not 'purely' X, you could say). For DNA to be 'taken with them' upon the death of particular people means that everyone with a particular genetic marker that marks them as whatever would have to be gone, together with all of their descendants who would've carried that marker as a result of their ancestors still having it. And that would create a huge mess of problems for Mormon claims regarding Native Americans, since for them to be descendants of these mythical ancient people mentioned in the BOM has to mean that the DNA is identifiable as such (that there is a uniquely 'Lamanite' or 'Nephite' DNA marker) and is still present in some modern, existing population. That's what being a descendant of someone or some group means, at the level of DNA: their DNA is inside of you, reflected in you such that if it were tested, you would share at least part of your DNA profile with whatever group or person you are being compared to. (There are other ways you can come to be related to someone, of course, such as via adoption, but this does not impact your DNA, and at any rate is not what the BOM or the people who believe in it claim about the people mentioned in the BOM and their relation to Native Americans.)

So DNA is not meaningless at all, and it totally refutes the BOM.

 

[Jane_Doe]

This is written like you don't understand what DNA is. For one thing, whether a person is 'purely' something or not shouldn't matter, since testing for particular DNA markers (which is how they determine what 'tribe' a person is from; see here for a particular Jewish example) assumes that the marker will be present through generations of mutations accumulated through the passage of time. This is how peoples of the New World can be identified as coming from wherever they come from even though the Spanish came and committed rape and genocide centuries ago: because they're still identifiable as X; they're just now X with additional genetic material inherited when the Spanish came and conquered and raped their ancestors (not 'purely' X, you could say). For DNA to be 'taken with them' upon the death of particular people means that everyone with a particular genetic marker that marks them as whatever would have to be gone, together with all of their descendants who would've carried that marker as a result of their ancestors still having it. And that would create a huge mess of problems for Mormon claims regarding Native Americans, since for them to be descendants of these mythical ancient people mentioned in the BOM has to mean that the DNA is identifiable as such (that there is a uniquely 'Lamanite' or 'Nephite' DNA marker) and is still present in some modern, existing population. That's what being a descendant of someone or some group means, at the level of DNA: their DNA is inside of you, reflected in you such that if it were tested, you would share at least part of your DNA profile with whatever group or person you are being compared to. (There are other ways you can come to be related to someone, of course, such as via adoption, but this does not impact your DNA, and at any rate is not what the BOM or the people who believe in it claim about the people mentioned in the BOM and their relation to Native Americans.)

So DNA is not meaningless at all, and it totally refutes the BOM.

Dzheremi, could you identify the Book of Mormon passage that says all Native Americans were descended from Hebrews (even in part)?

There is no such passage.

These DNA "refutations" are combatting an argument that no one besides themselves is making.

 

[dzheremi]

Did I make such a strong claim, Jane? Why do I need to address a claim that I didn't make either? It's enough that the Book of Mormon is wrong to claim any Hebrew origin for Native Americans, as proven by DNA studies that do not support any such thing.