Book of Mormon Evidence

[_bomgeography]

I keep posting this. DNA evidencing proving haplo group x theory is incorrect

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DNA%29.PNG

[_Lemmie]

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? Why won't you respond to it?

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.

In my unprofessional and biased opinion...

You keep posting that.

[_bomgeography]

So do you first try and disprove the DNA evidence then move on.

I keep posting this. DNA evidencing proving haplo group x theory is incorrect

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DNA%29.PNG

[_Lemmie]

So do you first try and disprove the DNA evidence then move on.

I keep posting this. DNA evidencing proving haplo group x theory is incorrect

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DNA%29.PNG

Yes, you try to change the subject every time you can't answer a question.

Themis' post also addresses your lack of knowledge about dna:

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.

And by the way, you are posting a picture from Wikipedia as your big evidence. That's not evidence.

In my unprofessional and biased opinion...

[_Themis]

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.

If you are going to criticize Carbon dating you should at least have a good understanding of how it works. by the way The kennwick man would not have been anywhere close to the area you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

[_bomgeography]

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.

If you are going to criticize Carbon dating you should at least have a good understanding of how it works. by the way The kennwick man would not have been anywhere close to the area you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

He is in North America the hopewell stretched out to the Rocky Mountains no issue there

[_Themis]

He is in North America the hopewell stretched out to the Rocky Mountains no issue there

Washington is way beyond that and the dates are from 8-9k years ago. You should read the link and learn something about it. They look at other information to help get the most accurate date of when he lived which is well before Book of Mormon times and well out of your preferred area.

[_bomgeography]

The highest concentration is in the east coast it does not matter if one person went exploring. He probably had a horse.

See map

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DNA%29.PNG

[_Lemmie]

The highest concentration is in the east coast it does not matter if one person went exploring. He probably had a horse.

See map

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DNA%29.PNG

Your picture is meaningless and does not address any of tapirrider's or themis' issues. Why won't you respond to them?

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.

[_Themis]

The highest concentration is in the east coast it does not matter if one person went exploring. He probably had a horse.

See map

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DNA%29.PNG

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%.