bomgeography, a.k.a. David McKane wrote: In my unprofessional and biased opinion...
In the area of DNA, you should also remember you said this. Take a class.
bomgeography wrote:I have a basic understanding of what DNA is don't worry though scientist also have no idea how the very first DNA could come to exist.
You have demonstrated how limited and incorrect your basic understanding of dna is many times. Take a class.
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.
You are not bringing up any scientific reason to dismiss carbon dating as inaccurate. They know all the factors and take them into account. They don't have any real motivation to get an older date, and this example is over in Washington state. It doesn't deal with DNA dating. You are still left with a huge problem that Haplogroup x dates of arrival are way before Book of Mormon times. This means it does not support the Book of Mormon. It doesn't disprove it either. You cannot provide any reason to dismiss the dating so you like to ignore it so you can believe in your pet theory. It's not intellectually honest.
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: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.
Did you miss themis' post?
You are not bringing up any scientific reason to dismiss carbon dating as inaccurate. They know all the factors and take them into account. They don't have any real motivation to get an older date, and this example is over in Washington state. It doesn't deal with DNA dating. You are still left with a huge problem that Haplogroup x dates of arrival are way before Book of Mormon times. This means it does not support the Book of Mormon. It doesn't disprove it either. You cannot provide any reason to dismiss the dating so you like to ignore it so you can believe in your pet theory. It's not intellectually honest.
bomgeography wrote:In my unprofessional and biased opinion...
bomgeography 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.
Did you miss themis' post?
You are not bringing up any scientific reason to dismiss carbon dating as inaccurate. They know all the factors and take them into account. They don't have any real motivation to get an older date, and this example is over in Washington state. It doesn't deal with DNA dating. You are still left with a huge problem that Haplogroup x dates of arrival are way before Book of Mormon times. This means it does not support the Book of Mormon. It doesn't disprove it either. You cannot provide any reason to dismiss the dating so you like to ignore it so you can believe in your pet theory. It's not intellectually honest.
bomgeography wrote:In my unprofessional and biased opinion...
You keep posting that.
The arrival time of haplo group x is based on theory. The oldest date to haplo group x is Kennewick man. Which when first dates was not even close to 9000 bc they had to keep testing to get a date they wanted.
bomgeography wrote:The arrival time of haplo group x is based on theory. The oldest date to haplo group x is Kennewick man. Which when first dates was not even close to 9000 bc they had to keep testing to get a date they wanted.
Did you miss themis' post again?
You are not bringing up any scientific reason to dismiss carbon dating as inaccurate. They know all the factors and take them into account. They don't have any real motivation to get an older date, and this example is over in Washington state. It doesn't deal with DNA dating. You are still left with a huge problem that Haplogroup x dates of arrival are way before Book of Mormon times. This means it does not support the Book of Mormon. It doesn't disprove it either. You cannot provide any reason to dismiss the dating so you like to ignore it so you can believe in your pet theory. It's not intellectually honest.
bomgeography wrote:In my unprofessional and biased opinion...
The arrival time of haplo group x is based on theory. The oldest date to haplo group x is Kennewick man. Which when first dates was not even close to 9000 bc they had to keep testing to get a date they wanted.