Book of Mormon Evidence

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Book of Mormon Evidence

Post by _Quasimodo »

bomgeography wrote:
Quasimodo wrote:Do you mean thread? Did you misspell throat or trout?


I'm using my phone and doing to many things at once I thought I was on I message

I meant strep throat


I'm glad! Strep trout doesn't sound appetizing, at all.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Evidence

Post by _Themis »

bomgeography wrote:
Kennewick man a skeleton with Haplogroup x dna he dated to 9000 BP (7000BC) after several attempts.
Kennwick man has been dated to 3750BC, 6410BC, 4130BC, and 6130BC. That's a lot of mistakes


I see you still haven't read the article you linked. They know why they got younger dates due to incursion of younger carbon. So no they didn't make mistakes. They looked at each sample in detail. You do realize each dating was on different samples right? They didn't test the same one each time getting different dates. Your problem is you are completely ignorant of the science of Carbon 14 dating.
42
_tapirrider
_Emeritus
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:10 am

Re: Book of Mormon Evidence

Post by _tapirrider »

bomgeography wrote:it's convenient that they kept dating kennwick UNTIL they got the date they WANTED.


That is not how it works with credible researchers and that is not how Kennewick Man's radiocarbon age was arrived at. On the other hand, David's comment describes quite well what cherry picking pseudo researchers do to get what they want. And that is something David McKane is very well praciticed in.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Evidence

Post by _Maksutov »

Has anyone ever approached an actual professor of anthropology or history, specializing in the Hopewell, about McKane's claims?

If not, why not?

If so, what did they say?

We have heard from Michael Coe on MesoAmerican Mormon claims and Robert Ritner on the Book of Abraham. What about the Hopewell theory?
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Evidence

Post by _Lemmie »

Maksutov wrote:Has anyone ever approached an actual professor of anthropology or history, specializing in the Hopewell, about McKane's claims?

If not, why not?

If so, what did they say?

We have heard from Michael Coe on MesoAmerican Mormon claims and Robert Ritner on the Book of Abraham. What about the Hopewell theory?

I posted parts of this in a recent thread, but here is a statement from professors of history, anthropology, archaeology, as well as from the Curator of archaeology from the Ohio Historical Society, who define themselves as "scholars committed to increasing public understanding of Native American history and archaeology."

The subject of their letter is not limited to Hopewell civilization, but is overall a response to the idea that "Old World civilizations were involved in developing Native American cultures in pre-Columbian times."

Their opinions are pretty pointed:
Brad Lepper wrote:The following is a statement jointly authored by myself and the several other scholars indicated regarding our participation in the recent video production, "The Lost Civilizations of North America."

Given the notoriety this video has received (it was discussed by Glenn Beck on his television program), we felt it necessary to make the following statement a matter of record. I urge anyone who has any questions not answered by the statement to contact me. ...

As scholars committed to increasing public understanding of Native American history and archaeology, we want to make it clear that we do not support the theories presented in The Lost Civilizations of North America DVD. In our opinion, there is no compelling archaeological or genetic evidence for a migration from the Middle East to North America a few thousand years ago, nor is there any credible scientific evidence that Old World civilizations were involved in developing Native American cultures in pre-Columbian times.

Many of the artifacts used to support the films claims, such as the Newark "Holy Stones," have been proven fraudulent based on convincing scientific evidence and historical documentation.

Like the great majority of professional archaeologists and anthropologists, we have seen overwhelming evidence that Native Americans were independently responsible for designing and creating the Newark Earthworks, Cahokia Mounds, and the myriad other pre-Columbian sites across the United States.

Each of us was interviewed for this film. None of us was asked directly for our opinion on what turned out to be its underlying claim; that Old World civilizations played an active role in the development of Native American cultures, especially the mound builders. Instead, we were asked general questions about Native American societies, their remarkable technological achievements, genetic histories, and we were also asked to comment on the biases of many nineteenth-century historians and archaeologists concerning the abilities of the native people of North America.

We fear that the context of our general remarks as they currently appear in the film might lead viewers to conclude that our words on these subjects provide support for the films claims. That would be a mistake. In fact, our remarks, if presented in an unedited form, show clearly that we reject the assertions made in the finished documentary concerning a non-native source for the complex cultures of Native America. We informed the filmmakers of our objections in February 2010, five months before the DVDs release. The producers did make some changes in response to our objections, including deleting Ken Feder's interview entirely.

As a group, we believe that the final product remains misleading and presents claims that neither we nor our data support. In our opinion, there is no compelling evidence for the presence of Old World cultures in North America prior to the incursions of the Norse in the early 11th century.

Sonya Atalay Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Indiana University*

Terry Barnhart Professor of History, Eastern Illinois University*

Deborah Bolnick Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin*

Ken Feder Professor of Anthropology, Central Connecticut State University*

Alice Kehoe Professor of Anthropology, emeritus, Marquette University*

Brad Lepper Curator of Archaeology, Ohio Historical Society*

*We provide the names of our respective institutions here for identification purposes only. This is not meant to indicate that these institutions endorse our views.
Posted December 16, 2010 by: Brad Lepper

[bolding added by me, paragraph format added by me for ease of reading.]
_tapirrider
_Emeritus
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:10 am

Re: Book of Mormon Evidence

Post by _tapirrider »

Maksutov wrote:Has anyone ever approached an actual professor of anthropology or history, specializing in the Hopewell, about McKane's claims?

If not, why not?

If so, what did they say?

We have heard from Michael Coe on MesoAmerican Mormon claims and Robert Ritner on the Book of Abraham. What about the Hopewell theory?


Nothing in McKane's claims is original. He is only repeating the same type of thing that has been going around in pseudo fields for years. And that has been and is being addressed by archaeologists. One of the best parallels to Michael Coe for North America is Dr. Ken Feder. He has published several books to the public addressing the fantastical claims that McKane is repeating.

Here is a good podcast where Feder discusses some of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQm0dQWo53w

I did contact an archaeologist once over claims made by Wayne May about an Egyptian temple in Tennessee. The professor was very helpful and steered me to valid sources and helped me to understand how that fantasy began and why it is wrong.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Evidence

Post by _Maksutov »

tapirrider wrote:
Maksutov wrote:Has anyone ever approached an actual professor of anthropology or history, specializing in the Hopewell, about McKane's claims?

If not, why not?

If so, what did they say?

We have heard from Michael Coe on MesoAmerican Mormon claims and Robert Ritner on the Book of Abraham. What about the Hopewell theory?


Nothing in McKane's claims is original. He is only repeating the same type of thing that has been going around in pseudo fields for years. And that has been and is being addressed by archaeologists. One of the best parallels to Michael Coe for North America is Dr. Ken Feder. He has published several books to the public addressing the fantastical claims that McKane is repeating.

Here is a good podcast where Feder discusses some of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQm0dQWo53w

I did contact an archaeologist once over claims made by Wayne May about an Egyptian temple in Tennessee. The professor was very helpful and steered me to valid sources and helped me to understand how that fantasy began and why it is wrong.


I'm interested in the psychology of people like McKane. He reminds me of other paranormal believers I've come across. I think some of it is an antagonism against established authority for personal reasons. In other respects it follows the patterns of cults and extremist political groups in its insularity, paranoia, credulity and narrative driven worldview. :wink:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
Post Reply