DiscussMormonism.com

So excluding the elephants this one is new.

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.co ... hants.html

No city and they have not verified if the stones are random of human deposited, not to mention a supposed carving of a mastodon. This area would have been above water during the end of the last ice age when humans lived in the area and Mastodons still roaming the area. Much to early for the Book of Mormon, but I see you keep trying.

bomgeography wrote:So excluding the elephants this one is new.

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.co ... hants.html

None of your dna haplo group comments are new, neither are your bogus artifact "parallels."

Why randomly threw in your old and thoroughly debunked dna and parallel nonsense as non sequiturs in multiple paragraphs, and then try to pass it off as "new"? What is your point?

To say that Neolithic hunters and gatherers were moving boulders around to make Stonehenge doesn't fit any 10000 year timeline that I know of.

bomgeography wrote:To say that Neolithic hunters and gatherers were moving boulders around to make Stonehenge doesn't fit any 10000 year timeline that I know of.

He didn't say that.

Themis wrote:No city and they have not verified if the stones are random [or] human deposited

Again, can you explain why you included non-new, thoroughly debunked dna stuff and called it "new" in this latest post?

Lemmie wrote:

bomgeography wrote:To say that Neolithic hunters and gatherers were moving boulders around to make Stonehenge doesn't fit any 10000 year timeline that I know of.

He didn't say that.

Themis wrote:No city and they have not verified if the stones are random [or] human deposited

Again, can you explain why you included non-new, thoroughly debunked dna stuff and called it "new" in this latest post?

Its proven that Israel has the most diverse concentration of Haplo Group x. Its also proven that the Closest genetic relative to native American haplo group x is Iranians. Because Israel has the most diverse concentration of haplo group x its only natural for scientist to theorize that haplo group x distributed from the Israel.

see link
http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.co ... e-x2a.html

Lemmie wrote:

bomgeography wrote:To say that Neolithic hunters and gatherers were moving boulders around to make Stonehenge doesn't fit any 10000 year timeline that I know of.

He didn't say that.

Themis wrote:No city and they have not verified if the stones are random [or] human deposited

Again, can you explain why you included non-new, thoroughly debunked dna stuff and called it "new" in this latest post?

bomgeography wrote:Its proven that Israel has the most diverse concentration of Haplo Group x. Its also proven that the Closest genetic relative to native American haplo group x is Iranians. Because Israel has the most diverse concentration of haplo group x its only natural for scientist to theorize that haplo group x distributed from the Israel.

see link
http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.co ... e-x2a.html

That's a link to your own work which contains no proof but just the same, thoroughly debunked errors; debunked here alone over and over, but also on reddit exmormon where you are now banned, and on Mormon Dialogue, where you have been banned or limited under at least four different screen names, in addition to having your work refuted entirely.

Your in denial x2a'j is proven the closest genetic link.

To differentiate between a Solutrean and Beringiansource for X2a, one must look instead at the phylogeo-graphy of the most recent ancestors of X2a (Figure 1).X2a'J is the clade that unites X2a and its nearest sisterclade, X2j (Fernandes et al. 2012; Reidla et al. 2003).The geographic distribution of X2'j haplotypes especially those with some of the defining mutations for X2a (indicating that they belong to the lineagethat led to X2 would be informative to this ques-tion, but no contemporary or ancient individuals belonging to these lineages have been identified, with the possible exception of one individual from Iran with the X2a'j defining transition at mitochondrialnucleotide position 12397.

See link to see more evidence on this mystery but explained by the Book of Mormon

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.co ... e-x2a.html

bomgeography wrote:To differentiate between a Solutrean and Beringiansource for X2a, one must look instead at the phylogeo-graphy of the most recent ancestors of X2a (Figure 1).X2a'J is the clade that unites X2a and its nearest sisterclade, X2j (Fernandes et al. 2012; Reidla et al. 2003).The geographic distribution of X2'j haplotypes especially those with some of the defining mutations for X2a (indicating that they belong to the lineagethat led to X2 would be informative to this ques-tion, but no contemporary or ancient individuals belonging to these lineages have been identified, with the possible exception of one individual from Iran with the X2a'j defining transition at mitochondrialnucleotide position 12397.

See link to see more evidence on this mystery but explained by the Book of Mormon

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.co ... e-x2a.html

Your link above is to your own essay, which contains no proof or even argument, and which has been thoroughly discredited many times over on multiple forums and by many people, who have supported their debunking with legitimate, academically accepted references. Anyone can read the dismantling of your pseudo-science by simply searching threads you have authored. You have no credibility.

So I ask for the third time, can you explain why you included non-new, thoroughly debunked dna stuff and called it "new" in this latest post? And why you are now re-posting it again, after abandoning multiple threads where your work has been proven wrong and you have been asked about it but refused to respond?

Your behavior is getting very close to ldsfaqs-troll level. What's your point?

(and, as has been pointed out to you before, posting other people's work without attribution is PLAGIARISM. Please provide a reference for the para above that you lifted wholesale from a published article. )