Even if we go by the date you like which I never found it would have been well before Lehi's group and on the other side of North America. Reality is that this person was between 8-9k years ago both by carbon dating and a cascade point found with him. This and so much more proves this DNA was here long before Book of Mormon so it supports the Book of Mormon 0%.
It's the flawed radio carbon dating that is not matching up not the DNA. As stated the DNA cultural linguistic Native American traditions etc do match.
When it comes to radio carbon dating Kennewick man a skeleton with Haplogroup x dna he dated to 9000 BP (7000BC) after several attempts. Radio carbon dating has nothing to do with dna. Kennwick man has been dated to 3750BC, 6410BC, 4130BC, and 6130BC. Those are some wide ranges. In my unprofessional and biased opinion the scientist based on their own biases kept dating Kennewick man until they got the date they wanted. Radio carbon dating is based on knowing how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere at the time there dating the specimen to and other variables. I frankly do not trust their variables. I believe the old world (Hebrew) language and culture and technology found among the Hopewell Adena and Native Americans is a better indication of age. Not to mention there is no dna evidence for a Bering Ice Bridge crossing not only for Haplo group x but other Haplo groups.
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:48 pm Posts: 390 They changed the first dating of Kennwick man by 3450 years. That same number used in the opposite direction from their very first dating falls well within the Book of Mormon timeline.
bomgeography wrote: It's the flawed radio carbon dating that is not matching up not the DNA. As stated the DNA cultural linguistic Native American traditions etc do match.
When it comes to radio carbon dating Kennewick man a skeleton with Haplogroup x dna he dated to 9000 BP (7000BC) after several attempts. Radio carbon dating has nothing to do with dna. Kennwick man has been dated to 3750BC, 6410BC, 4130BC, and 6130BC. Those are some wide ranges. In my unprofessional and biased opinion the scientist based on their own biases kept dating Kennewick man until they got the date they wanted. Radio carbon dating is based on knowing how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere at the time there dating the specimen to and other variables. I frankly do not trust their variables. I believe the old world (Hebrew) language and culture and technology found among the Hopewell Adena and Native Americans is a better indication of age. Not to mention there is no dna evidence for a Bering Ice Bridge crossing not only for Haplo group x but other Haplo groups.
Yes your unprofessional bias keeping you from looking for the truth. The Cascade point was used from about 7500-12000 BP. That means there carbon dating of 8-9k years ago is accurate. You know almost nothing about it, so you have no reason to reject it other then a predetermined conclusion.
bomgeography wrote:Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:48 pm Posts: 390 They changed the first dating of Kennwick man by 3450 years. That same number used in the opposite direction from their very first dating falls well within the Book of Mormon timeline.
bomgeography wrote:Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:48 pm Posts: 390 They changed the first dating of Kennwick man by 3450 years. That same number used in the opposite direction from their very first dating falls well within the Book of Mormon timeline.
bomgeo wrote:They changed the first dating of Kennwick man by 3450 years. That same number used in the opposite direction from their very first dating falls well within the Book of Mormon timeline.
themis asked for a CFR for the above statement. the reference you gave says nothing of the sort.
Uh, the Jewish religion dates back to a little less than 3000 years ago (600 BC to 700 BC), so you still have a big, 3000 year problem. I'd be happy to help you with the math.
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.
Hopewell artifacts support the Book of Mormon so does the entire Hopewell civilization. And no Hopewell artifacts are real.
I'm not hear to convince you of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does that by itself.
What's I'm saying is that there is overwhelming DNA artifact and cultural evidence speaking to the historicity of it. Critics will never admit this.
Those who already know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon won't care.
Those who are in the Middle will hopefully realize it's exactly what it purports to be and and gain a desire to try the promise that Moroni gives to all those who listen to his words.
