Book of Mormon Evidence

[_Themis]

The DNA evidence along with the cultural, artifact, archeological and Native American traditional beliefs support the Book of Moromon 100%

Since the DNA you use to support the Book of Mormon dates to well before the Book of Mormon times it's obvious it does not support the Book of Mormon 100%. Ignore it all you want, but this fact will not go away.

[_bomgeography]

The DNA evidence along with the cultural, artifact, archeological and Native American traditional beliefs support the Book of Moromon 100%

Since the DNA you use to support the Book of Mormon dates to well before the Book of Mormon times it's obvious it does not support the Book of Mormon 100%. Ignore it all you want, but this fact will not go away.

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.

[_Lemmie]

In my unprofessional and biased opinion...

That is the truest thing McKane has ever written!

[_bomgeography]

In my unprofessional and biased opinion...

That is the truest thing McKane has ever written!

That's not what I wanted you to focus on

[_Lemmie]

In my unprofessional and biased opinion...

That is the truest thing McKane has ever written!

That's not what I wanted you to focus on

I'm sure. Still the most true part.

[_spotlight]

Unfortunately for scientist DNA is the best advocate for a creator.

Especially the endogenous retroviruses.

there is no reasonable explanation for the first DNA sequence came to exist by chance.

Straw man. I know of no scientists who suggest modern DNA was originally fully formed.

[_bomgeography]

Unfortunately for scientist DNA is the best advocate for a creator.

Especially the endogenous retroviruses.

there is no reasonable explanation for the first DNA sequence came to exist by chance.

Straw man. I know of no scientists who suggest modern DNA was originally fully formed.

In order for it to allow for life it has to be fully formed

[_Lemmie]

Unfortunately for scientist DNA is the best advocate for a creator.

Especially the endogenous retroviruses.

there is no reasonable explanation for the first DNA sequence came to exist by chance.

Straw man. I know of no scientists who suggest modern DNA was originally fully formed.

In order for it to allow for life it has to be fully formed

Then provide a reference. When you can't find one, consider taking a class or two in genetics.

[_bomgeography]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate things. I want to know how the first DNA sequence came to exist. And besides YouTube says your video does not exist

[_Lemmie]

In my unprofessional and biased opinion...

In the area of DNA, you should also remember you said this. Take a class.